Cuando el tratado TLC por poco no nacía

Hoy parece estar de moda en México la amenaza del pseudo-presidente investido como tal pero con escasa legitimidad Donald Trump de terminar con el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte o TLCAN (mejor conocido simplemente como TLC para mayor brevedad) en caso de que dicho tratado no pueda ser renegociado a un tratado nuevo que sea más del gusto de Trump, o sea un tratado leonino en el que Estados Unidos sea un gran ganador obteniendo el monopolio absoluto de todo lo que Trump cree que le conviene a Estados Unidos y México sea un gran perdedor en todo. De antemano se da por hecho de que tal renegociación, aún si el Presidente Enrique Peña Nieto y su representante personal Luis Videgaray acceden a todos los términos humillantes que sean impuestos por el equipo de Trump, fracasará en cualquier intento de aprobar un tratado renegociado bajo esos términos en el Congreso de la Unión en México. De hecho, antes de que el TLC entrara en vigor, hubo una oposición firme en todo México en contra de dicho tratado de parte de numerosos sectores, y la única razón por la cual el TLC impulsado en México por el Presidente Carlos Salinas de Gortari fue aprobado es porque en ese entonces el partido político del Presidente de México todavía tenía una mayoría absoluta y podía “mayoritear” a todos los demás partidos políticos juntos. Pero ese aplastante predominio político que duró siete décadas terminó cuando durante la presidencia de Ernesto Zedillo el PRI perdió por vez su mayoría absoluta en el Congreso de la Unión, y no ha podido recuperar su mayoría en el Congreso desde entonces, y casi todos los analistas coinciden en que en un México cada vez más democrático las probabilidades de que un presidente emanado del PRI (o de otro partido) pueda contar con un Congreso dominado por una mayoría absoluta del PRI (o del otro partido) son casi iguales a cero; no se ve posible que eso vuelva a ocurrir nunca más. Con las elecciones presidenciales en México que se van a llevar a cabo en 2018, aún si Donald Trump estuviera dispuesto a ceder algo a México en un TLC renegociado que ya rebautizó por cuenta propia como NAFFTA (North American Free and Fair Trade Agreement), las probabilidades de que haya suficientes votos en el Congreso de México para aprobarlo dentro del tiempo que Donald Trump a impuesto como límite (a los 200 días de haber iniciado su período como Presidente de Estados Unidos) son prácticamente nulas, y lo más probable es que Trump unilateralmente sacará a Estados Unidos del TLCAN (como ya lo hizo con el Acuerdo Trans Pacífico de Cooperación Económica que tanto trabajo le costó a la administración de Barack Obama poder sacar adelante) sin esperar a que el renegociado TLC de cualquier manera termine fracasando en el Congreso de la Unión en México. En pocas palabras, desde estos momentos se puede dar el TLC por muerto.

Sobran alarmistas que como agoreros del Apocalipsis han estado pregonando que si el TLC se viene abajo entonces México se hundirá y desaparecerá como nación, lo cual es falso porque antes de que el TLC entrara en vigor el 1 de enero de 1994 el país avanzaba y prosperaba sin mayores problemas. Había México antes del TLC en 1994, y seguirá habiendo un México después de que el TLC haya muerto a iniciativa personal de Donald Trump, así que sus amenazas no nos deben asustar. De hecho, y a largo plazo, Estados Unidos tiene mucho más que perder con el desmoronamiento del TLC que México, pero eso lo tendrán que aprender los norteamericanos en carne propia.

En estos momentos de zozobra sobre todo para los inversionistas que sacaron el mayor provecho posible de las ventajas del TLC con las cuales podían multiplicar sus ganancias por raudales volviéndose más ricos a costa de empobrecer y explotar cada vez más y más a las clases trabajadoras, vale la pena hacer un poco de memoria para recordar que, antes de que el Tratado de Libre Comercio entrara en vigor, el TLC por poco moría en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos ante la ausencia de una cantidad suficiente de votos a favor del TLC. Por poquito y el TLC habría muerto en ese entonces antes de nacer, y de haber ocurrido tal cosa hoy no habría TLC y Donald Trump no tendría argumentos con qué estar escandalizando a medio mundo esgrimiendo a la vez un gran garrote.

El tiempo al cual nos tenemos que remitir se centra en 1993, y a un personaje clave sumiso y obediente al cien por ciento a los dictados del Presidente Carlos Salinas de Gortari, el entonces Procurador General de la República Jorge Carpizo McGregor, un ex Rector de la UNAM que aunque se le ha alabado mucho en varias fuentes documentales en realidad fue un personaje por demás obscuro que dejó tras de sí una amplia estela de abusos y aberraciones en que incurrió al servir incondicionalmente al Presidente Salinas de Gortari. Se trata de un tipo verdaderamente funesto cuya sorpresiva muerte en circunstancias extrañas en 2012 dejó muchas cosas sin aclarar, muchos secretos que Carpizo se llevó consigo a la tumba. Se trata del mismo tipo del cual quedó documentada en esta bitácora en una artículo dividido en dos entradas su cuestionable actuación en torno a lo que debe considerarse como un asesinato político de alto nivel varios de cuyos culpables y encubridores siguen libres.

En esos días, cuando una de las mayores prioridades para el Presidente Carlos Salinas de Gortari era lograr ocupar el puesto de Director General de la Organización Mundial de Comercio con el apoyo de los E.E.U.U. y de los demás países del continente americano al terminar su sexenio, y cuando el destino del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte estaba siendo decidido en el Congreso norteamericano en 1993 pendía de un hilo por unos cuantos votos aún no decididos dado lo cerrado de la votación que se llevaría a cabo en el Congreso, el entonces Procurador Jorge Carpizo McGregor acatando órdenes directas del Presidente Carlos Salinas de Gortari se puso de inmmediato a la disposición de los congresistas norteamericanos para tratar por todos los medios posibles a su alcance de complacer a varios congresistas norteamericanos que estaban hartos exigiendo una justicia que no veían llegar. Es así como podemos leer lo siguiente en el periódico LOS ANGELES TIMES publicado el jueves 18 de noviembre de 1993 en la página A17:

Aún así otros congresistas abiertamente admitieron que Clinton había ganado sus votos únicamente después de que habían recibido concesiones específicas -algunas de las cuales tenían poca relación con el comercio internacional-. El Congresista E. Clay Shaw Jr. (Representante del Estado de Florida por el Partido Republicano), por ejemplo, dijo que él había aceptado apoyar el acuerdo únicamente después de que el Procurador General de México Jorge Carpizo personalmente le aseguró que un mexicano acusado de secuestrar y violar a una niña de 4 años en el Condado de Riverside sería extraditado.

La petición formulada por el congresista Shaw fué hecha a sabiendas de que al momento de hacerla el gobierno de México jamás había extraditado antes a ningún criminal de nacionalidad mexicana hacia los Estados Unidos, aún cuando Carpizo McGregor estaba por cumplir apenas un año de haber entrado como Procurador General de la República sin que hubiese ocurrido tal cosa, y pese a la existencia de un tratado de extradicción firmado entre los dos países el 4 de mayo de 1978 que entró en vigor el 25 de Enero de 1980 (este tratado está documentado en “United States Treaties and Other International Agreements”, Volumen 31, Parte 6, 1979, 4651-5954, TIAS9656, U.S. Department of State.)

A tan solo cuatro semanas los frutos del “arreglo” de alto nivel estaban aparentemente a la vista de todos. Si leemos el periódico DIARIO DE JUAREZ en su edición publicada el sábado 18 de diciembre de 1993, nos encontramos con lo siguiente:

EXTRADICION A EU
Por un voto al TLC, Mexico canjeará a un violador

La policía mexicana arrestó a (Serapio) Zúñiga Ríos, de 29 años, el miércoles en Querétaro, a unos 200 kilómetros al noroeste de ciudad de México, dijo ayer la oficina del procurador general. Zúñiga Ríos, trabajador agrícola migrante, era buscado en relación al secuestro y vejamen de una niña secuestrada de su casa en Murrieta, una comunidad del sur de California. Es la sobrina de uno de los asistentes del representante demócrata de la Florida, E. Clay Shaw, quien a cambio de dar su voto en favor del TLC demandó que las autoridades mexicanas ubicaran y extraditaran a Zúñiga. Shaw votó en favor del acuerdo el 17 de noviembre luego de recibir el compromiso de México de la captura de Zúñiga Ríos.

La extradicción del primer delincuente mexicano hacia los E.E.U.U. estaba siendo esperada y observada de cerca porque ésta podía sentar el precedente para que se extraditase también hacia los EE.UU. a cualquiera de las más prominentes figuras ligadas al narcotráfico, algo que aunque es un hecho hoy como lo demuestra la extradicción del Chapo Guzmán, en ese entonces era considerado y tratado casi como si fuera una traición a la Patria. Era una época en la cual los capos de la droga empleaban a su favor el patriotismo y el nacionalismo de los mexicanos que consideraban que solo a México le correspondía el derecho de juzgar a su propia gente, y entregar a un solo mexicano al gobierno norteamericano así fuese un narcotraficante de altos vuelos era una sumisión inaceptable.

Sin embargo, el Congresista E. Clay Shaw fué enterado un mes después de que ya había dado su voto en el Congreso norteamericano a favor del Tratado de Libre Comercio de que el delincuente a cambio de cuya extradición había dado su voto jamás sería extraditado hacia los E.E.U.U., y Carpizo McGregor fué bastante explícito en ésos días ante los medios de comunicación en que jamás permitiría que se sentara dicho precedente mientras él fuese Procurador. De éste modo, el congresista Shaw aprendió en carne propia cuánto valía la “palabra de honor” dada por el Procurador General de la República Jorge Carpizo McGregor y lo que podían esperar otros de éste ex-defensor “oficial” de los derechos humanos

Si leemos el periódico DIARIO DE JUAREZ en su edición publicada el domingo 15 de mayo de 1994 en la página 2A, nos encontramos con lo siguiente:

Incumple México a EU promesas por el TLC
Enjuició y sentenció a un violador que se había comprometido extraditar

El mes pasado, una corte mexicana lo condenó por el crimen de California y lo sentenció a 31 años de cárcel.

De acuerdo a las leyes de Estados Unidos, la acusación contra Zúñiga lo hace inmune a la extradición.

“Estamos profundamente sorprendidos y decepcionados”, declaró Robert S. Gelbard, Asistente del Secretario de Estado a cargo de casos que involucran narcóticos y crímenes internacionales, al arribar a la Ciudad de México con fines a reunirse el lunes con oficiales mexicanos.

La asperaza con la que surgió la disputa, así como el trato de negocios con el que los dos gobiernos trataron de resolver este problema, reflejan los cambios que se están llevando a cabo en las relaciones México-Estados Unidos.

Hace dos años una decisión de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de Estados Unidos declaró, en esencia, que el gobierno estadounidense seguía manteniendo el derecho de secuestrar en el extranjero a sospechosos de crímenes. Esto hizo que el gobierno de México buscara una renegociación al Tratado de Extradición firmado en 1978.

En ese entonces la administración de Bush actuó con el fin de secuestrar a un doctor mexicano después de que fue acusado de tomar parte en la tortura y asesinato de un agente americano anti-drogas en 1985.

El gobierno de Salinas respondió con una amenaza de suspender las actividades anti-drogas realizadas por Estados Unidos en territorio mexicano. Como resultado, tanto el presidente Bush como el presidente Clinton tuvieron que comprometerse a que no se iban a cometer más secuestros.

Como ha sido negociado este nuevo tratado, estas promesas hechas por los dos presidentes se respetarían para siempre.

En esta ocasión, una similar mezcla de crimen, nacionalismo y acusaciones hechas de mala fe fueron detonadas bajo lo que parece, tomando en consideración hechos pasados, un cauteloso control diplomático.

La administración de Clinton coincidió en su reclamo con la junta del lunes de La Comisión Binacional México-Estados Unidos, una junta bianual de altos oficiales para discutir temas como la protección del medio ambiente, tráfico de drogas, vivienda y comercio.

Zuñiga, un residente legal de los Estados Unidos, fue acusado de haber secuestrado y violado a la niña en septiembre de 1992, después de haber sido despedido de su trabajo como peón de un sembradío de flores, propiedad de los padres de la niña, cerca de Temecula, poblado situado a unos 90 kilómetros al norte de San Diego.

De no haber sido por el voto del Congresista E. Clay Shaw, es posible que el TLC no habría sido ratificado por el Congreso estadounidense en su versión fast-track, y el TLC habría muerto antes de nacer. En efecto, el apoyo al TLC en Estados Unidos no era unánime, era tan marginal que los votos para romper el empate y decidir el destino del TLC en el Congreso estadounidense se podían contar, literalmente hablando, con los dedos de una mano.

Podemos ver con la lectura de la nota periodística que, medio año después de la aprobación marginal del TLC, el burdo engaño del que fueron víctimas al más alto nivel los Congresistas norteamericanos a manos del Procurador General de la República Jorge Carpizo McGregor era ya más que obvio; dándose cuenta en forma tardía los Congresistas de que habían sido utilizados por Jorge Carpizo McGregor sólo para cumplir los deseos personales del amo cuya voz era la única que a fin de cuentas Jorge Carpizo McGregor estaba dispuesto a escuchar, la voz de su amo, patrón y protector incondicional, el Presidente Carlos Salinas de Gortari.

De cualquier modo, se tiene que agregar que Carlos Salinas de Gortari se vió obligado a retirar su candidatura al puesto de Director General de la Organización Mundial de Comercio el 1 de marzo de 1995 en medio del mayor escándalo y la peor de las desvergüenzas quedando ignominiosamente en el peor de los ridículos tras el arresto de su “hermano incómodo” Raúl el 28 de febrero de 1995 por su presunta participación en la planeación del asesinato de José Francisco Ruiz Massieu, Secretario General del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (¡y ex-esposo de Adriana Salinas de Gortari!), siendo reemplazado por el ex-Ministro de Comercio italiano Renato Ruggiero quien tomó posesión el 23 de marzo de 1995 de su puesto como el primer Director General de la recién creada Organización Mundial de Comercio, para beneplácito de los muchos críticos de la administración salinista, entre ellos sin lugar a dudas el Congresista norteamericano E. Clay Shaw Jr., de modo que a fin de cuentas no le sirvió de nada a Carlos Salinas de Gortari el haber dejado como un bufón ante la comunidad internacional a Jorge Carpizo McGregor sólo para satisfacer sus ansias personales de poder, quedando expuesto como uno de los presidentes más nefastos en la historia contemporánea de México. Y con la publicación de un artículo en su edición correspondiente al 24 de abril de 1995 de la revista FORBES revelando un episodio criminal de Carlos Salinas de Gortari cuando siendo niño mató con un rifle de su padre a una trabajadora doméstica, no le quedó más remedio a Carlos Salinas de Gortari que salir del país en un virtual auto-exilio para no volver sino varios años después hasta que considerase que el país hubiese olvidado su desventurada gestión como Presidente de México.

Con un Presidente norteamericano ya de por sí sumamente hostil hacia el concepto del Tratado de Libre Comercio -en contraste con el Presidente Bill Clinton que hizo hasta lo indecible por lograr la aprobación del TLC en el Congreso estadounidense- y con un Congreso de mayoría Republicana que toma de modo unánime la línea de hostilidad abierta del Presidente Trump en contra del TLC, y con un Presidente mexicano que ya no tiene la capacidad legal ni la fuerza política de poder recurrir a un mayoriteo en el Congreso de la  Unión para lograr la aprobación de un TLC renegociado al gusto de Trump, se puede dar la muerte del TLC como un hecho que pronto será consumado. Es la crónica de una muerte anunciada. De hecho Canadá ya lo dá por muerto al dejar saber que no apoyará a México en alguna renegociación del TLC con Donald Trump. En 1993 fue casi un verdadero milagro del destino que se lograran reunir todas las condiciones que se requerían para que tanto en el Congreso norteamericano, y en el Congreso mexicano como en el Parlamento canadiense se lograra la ratificación del acuerdo firmado por los ejecutivos de los tres países en su versión fast track. Hoy esas condiciones no está ni siquiera remotamente dadas. Le podemos decir adiós desde hoy mismo al TLC, no es necesario esperar a que Trump desarrolle su melodrama para consumo de sus seguidores a los que mantiene alucinados como todo un showman. Y baste recordar que en 1993 el voto de un solo Congresista Republicano fue tan crucial para que México pudiese obtener la aprobación del TLC en el Congreso norteamericano, para entender que hoy algo parecido ya no va a ocurrir. Tal vez estas sean las razones por las cuales el gobierno de Peña Nieto, más realista, está enfocando sus esfuerzos para promover la compra de lo HECHO EN MEXICO, a sabiendas de que con la muerte anunciada del TLC el precio de muchos productos norteamericanos se va a disparar hasta por las nubes y se va a tener que importar productos equivalentes de otros países. Pero la otra cara de la moneda es que, al dejar de comprarle México a Estados Unidos muchos de sus productos por incosteables tras la muerte del TLC, una buena cantidad de trabajadores norteamericanos van a terminar perdiendo sus empleos, seguramente muchos de los cuales votaron por Donald Trump y el cual ahora les pagará el favor enviándolos a las filas del desempleo con la muerte del TLC, un TLC que en 1993 por poco y no nacía. Y muerto el TLC, será imposible que pueda volver a nacer, al menos los políticos mexicanos y el Ejecutivo mexicano ya no se prestarán para una segunda decepción de parte de un socio comercial que ha dejado de ser confiable y que está perdiendo rápidamente su capacidad de liderazgo mundial.

US to split, as foreseen by Baba Vanga?

As astonishing as the election of a Black American to the US presidency was in 2009, even more astonishing is the fact that a Bulgarian clairvoyant who went by the name of Baba Vanga actually predicted that the 44th President of the USA would be a Black American. That event became fulfilled with the triumph of Barack Obama in the presidential elections carried out in 2008. It should be remarked that Baba Vanga passed away in 1996, long before Obama could have been considered as a serious contender for the White House, and certainly at a time when the triumph of a Black American in a race for the US presidency was considered as a near impossibility. Baba Vanga was a blind woman, which makes her prediction even more significant. However, that prediction of Baba Vanga was only one of two predictions concerning the USA. Her second prediction actually spoke of the USA coming apart after the presidency of the Black America was fulfilled, once his successor -Donald Trump- had taken the oath of office.

It goes without saying that the 2016 presidential election left the USA seriously divided. The man who won is actually someone who lost the lost the popular vote by nearly three million, which is hardly the result of anything that could be considered a democracy. Even more, there are many Americans who consider Donald Trump as an illegitimate President, whose triumph was artificially boosted by an intervention of his beloved friends the Russian hackers without whose help Trump would could very well have lost.

The issue of the illegitimacy of Donald Trump who during his first ten days in office has governed as if he were a King by issuing one executive order after another without the need of any kind of approval or debate by Congress is no small issue. Who wants to be governed for several years by a megalomaniac narcissistic man whose claim to victory is tainted by the meddling of a foreign government that very likely affected the outcome of the presidential election? And herein lies the possibility, no longer consider remote, that Baba Vanga may have the second part of her prediction turning out to be true.

Before the unanticipated defeat of Hillary Clinton, a defeat made possible by an archaic Electoral College which should have been done away with a long time ago, was considered an impossibility, and even most of the followers of Baba Vanga considered that this part of the predictions was impossible to fulfill, that such a thing would never happen. After all, the US Civil War was fought precisely over this issue, under the legal argument that once a state had joined the Union it could not break off from the Union, it was heavily bonded to the Union for all time to come. The validity of the argument was upheld by the fact that the Confederacy lost the war; had the Confederacy won the Southern states would have constituted what today would be known as the Confederate States of America, a nation in which slavery would perhaps be practiced today in the third millennium. Thus dismantling of the Confederacy was not merely resting on a legal argument over the impossibility of legally leaving the Union, it also had a moral overtone, the overtone of slavery. The fight carried out by Abraham Lincoln lied upon solid ethical and moral grounds. But such is not the case today. Few, if any, consider Donald Trump to be the epitome of ethical morality, not even his closest followers believe he can stand up to the stature of a leader such as Abraham Lincoln.

Baba Vanga’s prediction of the USA coming apart can be interpreted in two ways: it can either mean that the US society would become seriously divided in two irreconcilable sides with the split lasting for as long as Donald Trump remains in the Oval Office, in which case her prediction has already come to pass, or it can mean something far deeper with far reaching historical consequences. It can mean that the USA will begin to break apart as a nation, breaking apart into at least two independent states.

Governing via executive orders and thus making an acquiescing Republican-controlled US Congress obsolete, which by the way kills the concept of separation of powers that was once thought to be a guarantee of fair government, this leaves only one alternative to those who consider Donald Trump an illegitimate President and who refuse to be governed by a quasi-King issuing one executive order after another: separating the state from the rest of the Trump-dominated USA. And indeed there is already one state that is seriously considering separating itself from the rest of the USA. That state is California, and its secession drive under YesCalifornia is being called California Exit or Calexit (after Brexit). Again, as with the Baba Vanga prediction that the 44th President of the USA would be a Black American, this secession proposal just two or three years ago would have been unthinkable and impossible.

According to a news report published by the Associated Press, a proposal was submitted Thursday January 26th 2017 to state election officials in California that would ask voters to repeal part of the state constitution that declares California an inseparable part of the United States. If the proposal qualifies for the ballot and is approved by voters, the proposal could be a step to a future vote on whether California should break away from the U.S. Supporters Thursday were cleared to begin attempting to collect nearly 600,000 voter signatures needed to place the plan on the ballot. Similar attempts to make California a nation, or break it into multiple states, have failed. The election of President Donald Trump in November rekindled talk of California seceding from the union. The proposal makes no mention of President Donald Trump, who was trounced by Hillary Clinton by more than 4 million votes in California, raising the possibility that this time Californians who want to be independent of a Trump ridden nation may finally get their wish. Secretary of State Alex Padilla said the group behind the proposal, Yes California Independence Campaign, was cleared to begin attempting to collect nearly 600,000 voter signatures needed to place the plan on the ballot. The proposed constitutional amendment, titled California Nationhood, would also ask voters to repeal language that states the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law. If approved, it calls for scheduling a vote in 2019 to ask voters, "Should California become a free, sovereign and independent country?" Threats to secede from the United States have been a part of American politics almost since the nation was founded. The most serious attempt came before and during the Civil War, when 11 Southern states left to form the Confederacy. Another hurdle would be the U.S. Constitution, which does not provide for state secession in a peaceful manner letting each state decide at any point in time if it wants to remain part of the Union. The campaign must submit the valid voter signatures by July 25 to qualify for the November 2018 ballot.

To understand the drive behind the California secession movement, it is important to bear in mind the kind of country they want to secede from at this very moment. The Trump presidency is not merely a right-wing moderate conservative presidency as was the presidency of Ronald Reagan, one of the most beloved Presidents of all times. This time the White House is not just a moderate right wing bastion. It is a far right administration, as far right as it can possibly get without admitting any resemblance to prior historical figures who ended up in the wrong side of history along with their many supporters. The very man chosen by Donald Trump to be his senior adviser and strategist is well known for his extreme right wing ideology. Before Trump took the oath of office, some overoptimistic and naive commentators and editorialists chose to believe that Trump would somehow moderate himself by choosing brainy moderate intellectuals to be part of his team. But the appointment of Stephen Bannon utterly destroyed all that false expectations of moderation. By the very nature of Stephen Bannon, he goes contrary all the way to the free spirit of Californians. Furthermore, giving him a role in the National Security Council is akin to putting an SS Kommandant in charge of the US military. It can't get any worse than that. And the only way to get rid of him peacefully, which in turn means getting rid of Trump peacefully, is by seceding from the Union. There is no other way. On the other hand, California remaining in the Union can be used as Trump propaganda as proof that Californians approve all the antics Trump may have as a  bad surprise for Californians, such as the killing of NAFTA and the rupture of diplomatic relations between the USA (California) and Mexico just for starters. To put it mildly, remaining as part of the Union is akin to becoming a Trump accomplice and all the things he may do capable of harming America for a very long time to come.

The problem is not just Donald Trump. A political system that has allowed such an extremist to rise to the US presidency will allow almost surely allow others to accomplish the same feat even long after Donald Trump has gone. The true merit of Trump has been to show that it is possible to be a fierce racist, a xenophobe, an anti-immigrant white supremacist, a misogynist, a megalomaniac, a narcissist, and in spite of all these shortcomings and in spite of having lost by the popular vote and in spite of the outside meddling of hackers from other countries at the request of one of the presidential candidates, it is still possible to become President of the United States of America and receive the nuclear codes. We are talking about a failed political democracy, we are talking about a failed system.

One immediate advantage of Californians once the separation of California from the rest of the Union becomes a reality is that they would no longer be governed by Donald Trump as President. That’s about the only way they can take off Donald Trump from their backs.

But wouldn’t President Trump object to the wishes of Californians in case they decide to break off from the USA? It would be sheer hypocrisy for him to do so, considering that he himself applauded the separation of England from the European Union, i.e. Trump approved and applauded the beginning of the breakup of the European Union. So why should he complain if the USA becomes splitting apart with the separation of California from the USA? Trump has even gone on record by saying that Brexit will give British ‘their own identity’. Likewise, the separation of California from Trumpland will give Californians -finally- their own identity. So, why shouldn’t Californians have the same right that President Trump is giving to the Britons? A right to their own identity. If Trump wants to rule as King what remains of the USA, let those who accept his purported illegitimate presidency enjoy or suffer the consequences.

As if all of the above was not enough, there is a newer more urgent issue that needs to be addressed by Californians. The US Constitution is grossly outdated and is no longer useful for the current needs of society. The current electoral system forged by the founding fathers that allows anyone -even a mentally unfit candidate- to receive the US presidency in spite of having lost the popular vote not by hundreds or thousands or even hundreds of thousands but by millions of voters is quite an aberration, and calls not for an amendment to the US Constitution but to the entire Constitution itself, in such a way that we would be referring to “the Old Constitution” and “the New Constitution”. The current stalemate in Capitol Hill makes it nearly impossible to refurbish the US Constitution by taking the best of the Old Constitution in the drafting of a refurbished Constitution more suited for the needs and times of the Third Millennium. Which means in turn that it is impossible to do away with the outmoded Electoral College. The only way to break off from the choke hold of the anachronic Electoral College is to break off from the USA itself and begin work on a new Constitution for the nation of California, without any Electoral College.

It was stated above that one hurdle in the attempts of California for becoming an independent nation is the US Constitution. Those behind Trump argue that California is binded to the USA for all times -and thus to the Trump presidency- since it is illegal for any state to separate from the Union. However, it must be recalled that when the Thirteen Colonies proclaimed their independence from England, such an act of rebellion was also considered illegal, and it was considered so illegal that a bloody war was waged against the colonists by the British Empire, but in the end England lost and the independentists won after an enormous sacrifice. If the US Constitution forbids California and Californians from leaving a land dominated by Donald Trump and people who think like Donald Trump, if the US Constitution allows coercion against any of its member states and tries to retain a state such as California in the Union against the free will of Californians, then the time has come to enact a new Constitution allowing the separation of California or reject the US Constitution altogether as a document whose time has passed. After all, the European Union which Trump himself hates and condemns allows any of its member nations to separate peacefully without the spilling of blood, otherwise the Brexit initiative would not have been possible. So if the Constitution of the European Union allows for the peaceful separation of any of its member states with full respect to their free will, and the US Constitution does not allow such a thing, then it is fair to say that the Constitution of the European Union enacted in modern times is far superior to a US Constitution that provides no respect for the free will and wishes of Californians. This would be yet one more reason, and a very important one, to break off from the Union.

There is a growing sense of urgency among some Californians on the need to carry out the separation from Trump’s land as soon as possible, and it has to do with Mexico. By now it is no secret that Donald Trump hates Mexico and hates all Mexicans in spite of some declarations to the contrary. The wall he wants to build all along the US-Mexico border and make Mexicans pay for his wall against their will and wishes is just one proof of his hatred towards Mexicans. But this goes a lot deeper than just the wall. Trump enjoys humiliating Mexicans, and his hatred towards the US neighbors to the South treating Mexicans as a bunch of beggars inhabiting a third world banana republic became so unbearable that Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, with the support of all Mexicans uniting around him, called off his first scheduled meeting with Trump as US President that was to take place on Tuesday January 31st, with no new date set for another meeting. This is considered by almost all Mexican historians (and many US historians) as the worst rupture in otherwise cordial relations between both countries since 1849 when the war between both nations took place. Indeed, some voices in Mexico are already calling for a full rupture in US-Mexico diplomatic relations and the opening of a new era without the USA as a trading partner, which is precisely what Trump wants anyway for he has already made it clear that if 200 days after he has taken office Mexico cannot agree with the Trump presidency on a new renegotiated NAFTA under his own Draconian terms then he will pull the USA out of NAFTA completely thus destroying NAFTA as he just did with the TPP.

Yes, Donald Trump can unilaterally destroy NAFTA, but once this is done it will be impossible to try to come up with a new trade deal with Mexico after NAFTA has been destroyed by Trump. Mexicans will take such unilateral action as a serious offense, and since Mexico is no longer ruled by a single one-party system as it used to be under the PRI for close to seven decades (which helped get NAFTA approved through a docile rubber-stamp Mexican Congress in 1994), regardless of who rules Mexico from 2018 to 2024 the opposition parties in Mexico supported by almost all the Mexican people will most likely adamantly refuse any kind of new trade deal that can be scraped at any moment by the whims of a lunatic in the Oval Office. In other words, once NAFTA is gone -and the clock is ticking at this very moment with 169 days left to go- it will be gone for good, and with Trump in the Oval Office his wall will become much more than a symbolic measure to stop illegal immigration, it will become a symbol of a relationship ruined for good. It will be a new version of the Iron Curtain that separated the West from Eastern Europe.

If California were a state (or a nation) far away in some continent like Asia or Australia, the break off of diplomatic relations between the USA and Mexico would be no big deal. However, California shares a border with Mexico, and a very important section of its economy lies on a fluid border with goods and people crossing the international bridges. If the border with Mexico becomes sealed under the Trump presidency, a major disruption is to be expected on the lives of many Californians who live in border cities as San Diego. Just take a look at the map.

Donald Trump doesn’t care about the human cost of the hoards of executive orders he issues and the actions he takes, be it Mexicans, Muslims, or even fellow Americans. He has already proven that. If he kills NAFTA, and many Mexicans are already getting ready for that possibility, it is a sure bet he will bring utter chaos to the California economy already devastated by several years of drought.

It goes without saying that for a state such as California, heavily dependent on its agricultural industry, Californian farmers would pay very dearly for any decision Trump takes to bring all trade between Mexico and the USA to a screeching halt. He himself, with all his millions, would be unaffected, his wife Melania would still be flaunting designer clothing at high class cocktail parties, he would keep on hiding his tax returns even from his most ardent followers, and both would keep enjoying the lifestyles of the rich and famous, but the little people Trump claims to look after would be mauled and devastated. Some with a lot more brains and knowledge than the buffoon who now rules over the entire USA as King are warning of the dire consequences of Trump's actions against the very same people he says he is trying to defend, but Trump believes that he is right 100 per cent of the time and those who question his judgment are evil doers concocting plots to ruin his majestic legacy. For all practical purposes, he is deaf. He cannot and will not admit to the fact that some of the core policies he wants to set in motion, dressed under a veil of isolationism, protectionism and populist nationalism, are the very same things that sent the US and the entire world into the 1929 Economic Depression that paved the way for World War Two.

In his quest to destroy Mexico and the Mexican economy Trump has the potential to carry many Californians to an economic calamity, but he really doesn’t care, because in his egotistical frame of mind he believes himself to be some kind of god, and gods never make mistakes. That’s one of the reasons of why Calexit is gaining momentum.

California has the sixth largest economy in the world, and thus California has the ability to secede from the USA and go independent. But will Donald Trump oppose the California secession denying Californians the same decision and right he is applauding as regards to the Brexit that carries along the possible breakup of the entire European Economic Community? As unpredictable as Trump is, he could very well try to resort to brute force in order to keep California and Californians as part of the Union, even if this means spilling a lot of blood with a lot of dead Californian corpses. A violent response from the man without a heart in one of his fits of mistemper perhaps can and should be expected. Yes, he is capable of that, and much more. The inhabitants of California should know this by now.

Provoking someone like Donald Trump carries an enormous amount of risk, especially if such individual is the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military establishment o the planet. Furthermore, it is naive to believe that if the California referendum advances he will remain idle doing nothing to prevent the breakup. After all, he is the man who ran his campaign under the slogan Make America Great and will not want to be remembered as the President under whose leadership the United States began to break apart. The same Donald Trump who supported Brexit is very likely to say “Not in my backyard!”. There are different outcomes to this story, depending on how deranged and out of his wits Donald Trump may be when he realizes that many Californians are talking seriously and expect to be treated seriously. One possible scenario is that as soon as he starts moving US federal troops around in the streets of California while resorting to his usual ominous threats warning Californians not to do so, the US Congress will remove him from power after a speedy impeachment procedure. But alas, it is a Republican dominated Congress, loyal to a President who calls himself a Republican, so expecting the current Congress to impeach and remove from power a deranged Donald Trump seems an unlikely event. The other possible scenario is that Donald Trump will let Californians decide for themselves which way they want to go and respect their decision in case they decide to break off from the Union. But then again, the man who ran his campaign under the slogan Make America Great will most likely take steps to retain California and Californians in the Union even against their will. This fight will not be different from the fight that was carried out by the Thirteen Colonies after they issued their Declaration of Independence, except that this time the enemy is not King George III but a man called Donald Trump who has deluded himself into believing he is some kind of a King. Oddly enough, Californians may find support from Europe in their independence quest from Trump land from the very same people whom Donald Trump supported in England in their separation quest from the European Union. Regardless, Californians can anticipate moral support from all over the world in case they have decided that the Union has gone too far down the gutters in its moral standing and stature as to make it worthy to remain in such a country.

And what if Californians get their wish and secede from the rest of the Union? Well, if they do so, riding themselves of the Donald Trump presidency for good, some other states will surely be getting the same idea. One interesting fact is that, according to an opinion poll made known by Reuters, one in four Americans want their state to secede from the U.S.:

And this was two years before it became known that Donald Trump, with the help of his Russian hackers who granted illegitimacy to his presidency, had won the November 2016 presidential election! So, if California secedes, it is likely that other states will try to follow suit rather than resign themselves to be dragged into a Trumpian nightmare. States such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are expected to be loyal to the far right Trump presidency and remain in the Union, while other states may follow suit if Californians succeed in breaking off the shackles that bind them to Donald Trump and a US Constitution that has proven to be completely worthless in letting the people impede those who lost by the popular vote grab the US presidency anyway.

As things stands right now, there are only two choices left: remain in the Union and thus become a Trump accomplice, or secede from the Union and say goodbye and farewell to the American would-be Caligula. Likewise, there could be states choosing to secede from the Trumpian far right monarchy, such as California, and there will be those choosing to remain loyal to all that Donald Trump represents. In the latter category we may consider Texas, now governed by Greg Abbot who has already called for the border between the USA and Mexico completely sealed regardless of the economic impact on Texans especially the millions of Texans who live alongside the US-Mexico border.

There is yet another important and very profound reason that justifies the separation of California at this precise moment in time from the rest of the USA. By so doing, once California takes the initiative and breaks off from the rest of the Union, the capability of Donald Trump as President to initiate World War Three will be greatly diminished, if not crippled. How important can this be? Well, the Russian takeover of the Crimean peninsula by resorting to an outright military invasion employing overwhelming military superiority was motivated precisely because of the strategic military importance of Crimea to Russia as a base for the Russian navy and the importance of Crimea to the geopolitical power of Russia. Were it not for this, Russia would never have risked severe economic sanctions from the West besides becoming alienated with the rest of Europe and even the rest of the world. Such is the importance of Crimea. On a similar vein, without California, after a peaceful separation if indeed a peaceful separation can be carried out with Trump in power, once the Union is deprived of the valuable ports used by the US Navy throughout the coast of California, launching an attack against some other country becomes a harder task for Donald Trump. The best hopes of Americans, and indeed perhaps the best hopes of mankind, for stopping or at the very least moderating the warlike impulses of the hawkish man in the White House who so far by his actions has demonstrated to be careless and irresponsible, lie in depriving him of all the economic and manpower resources California has to offer. The defeat of Donald Trump at the hands of Hillary Clinton would have been the best option to take away from Donald Trump his capability to wage nuclear war, but with that option gone the only other option left is to diminish his power to do so, and this can be done by taking away from him some of the resources he needs to do as he pleases, and the Calexit proposal is the only viable means to do so. There are no other alternatives left.

For California, there would be immediate advantages obtained with the separation from the rest of the  Union. No longer with the choke hold of the US federal government and its broken immigration system, California as a sovereign nation would be able to issue  on its own temporary work permits for the agricultural workers it needs from Mexico. Immigrant farm workers are central to the U.S. economy, doing back-breaking work many Americans won’t do. They support a $28 billion fruit and vegetable industry, the National Center for Farmworker Health stated in 2013. According to the group, more than 70 percent of farm workers are foreign born with a majority immigrating from Mexico.

The current H2A visa program for temporary agricultural workers is a joke.This  program that administers agricultural visas is steeped in bureaucracy, growers say. Many times the paperwork is exhaustive, complicated and the process takes so long that many farmers complain they don’t get workers in time. The broken system has led many to knowingly take on workers who have entered the country illegally. On the other hand, many growers have complained that “You end up hiring someone who comes to you with a document that looks legal”. The U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey, which tracked farm workers between 2007 and 2009, estimated 48 percent of them entered the country illegally. Likewise, the National Center for Farmworker Health has estimated previously that there are about 3 million seasonal farm workers in the USA and nearly 1.5 million are in the USA illegally.

It has come down to the point that it is far easier for Canadian growers to bring in Mexican agricultural workers. Canada benefits from the same Mexican agricultural work force that the US federal government denies to its own citizens, and while the agricultural industry thrives in Canada it appears that Washington doesn't care a damn if the California growers go bankrupt taking down with them the entire state.

But the agricultural growers of California are not the only ones complaining against a US federal government that for quite some time seems to have been conspiring against the best interests of the state of California. In the high-tech industries of Silicon Valley, complains are growing louder and louder against a USA immigration system that is not only broken down, but even threatens to pilfer the US technological leadership that immigration from other countries has provided. They’ve just about had more than enough. After breaking off from the USA, Californians would perhaps be amused and entertained over the decades long squabble going on in Washington over the immigration issue, but California would not be harmed by the never ending squabbles in Congress.

The US federal government, now headed by the fiercest anti-immigrant President in a long long time, is not going to make things any easier in the near future for California, and quite the contrary, conditions are likely to deteriorate. As things stand at present, now seems as good a time as any, or even a better time than any other time, to secede from the USA and go on its own.

If California secedes from the Union, benefits are to be reaped almost immediately. Take for example the executive order signed by Donald Trump January 25 threatening cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles with a cutoff in federal funds if they do not comply with the Trump order to give up their status as sanctuary cities, an executive order that was challenged yesterday by San Francisco, thus becoming  San Francisco the first city in the US to file a lawsuit over President Trump’s executive order targeting sanctuary cities. If California separates from the Union, that Trump executive order will become meaningless, and even more important, all Trump’s executive orders he may issue for as long as he remains President of the USA will be null and void in California. His threats against the independence initiative and his grip on California will become a thing of the past, just a fading memory of a bad nightmare.

Since California already has a large Hispanic population, it is poised to have (or recover in the case of a NAFTA destruction by order of Mr. Donald Trump) an excellent trade deal with its neighbor south of the border. Californian farmers would finally be able to get all the temporary Mexican workers they need with California-issued legal work visas without the US federal government interference which has been an obstacle on this issue for too long. California farmers who are more than fed up with the US federal government would finally get all the workers they need for their crops collection without US Immigration nosing in and taking away from them the Mexican workers they need to collect the produce.  Without the encumbrances of the US federal government, and as an independent state, California for the very first time would be able to bring in from neighboring Mexico as many agricultural workers as it needs, all within a fully legal framework.

Under the Trump fostered argument that every single newly arrived immigrant is taking a job away from a legal US citizen, that argument has been stretched to argue that high-tech talents and entrepreneurs brought from outside the USA should be barred for good since they too take away very good paying jobs that college graduates from US universities should be getting. But the argument is seriously flawed. In Silicon Valley, immigrants are seen as essential to the growth that has made it one of the most innovative places on earth. “You got to understand there has been for many years a brain drain from other countries to the United States, a lot of that to Silicon Valley,” said economist Robert Reich, who was labor secretary in the Clinton administration. Thirty-seven percent of Silicon Valley workers are foreign-born, nearly three times the number in the rest of the nation “There is no evidence they are taking jobs away from Americans. They are adding jobs because they are innovating,” Reich said. “That makes more jobs for everybody else, for more innovators”. For too long, the US federal government has made it harder and harder for the high tech industries in Silicon Valley to get all the foreign talent they need in order to remain competitive. Examples abound. Consider Sergey Brin, who escaped from the Soviet Union in 1979 and took refuge in the United States, and is the founder of Google, probably the most important company in the age of information. South African born Elon Musk is well known by now throughout the world. And what about Steve Jobs, whose biological father Abdulfattah “John” Jandali (born 1931) was born into a Muslim household and grew up in Homs, Syria? Yes, precisely the same country where Donald Trump has applied a permanent ban to all refugees escaping from Syria. And what about Ariana Huffington, who was born in Greece? And the list goes on and on. If California separates from the Union, all the problems that the California high tech industries have been having with the US federal bureaucracy in getting and keeping their foreign talent will become be a thing of the past, those problems would be over for good the only way they can be over for good, with the secession of California. Silicon Valley would have no problem bringing in from overseas the high-tech scientists and engineers it needs to remain competitive. If the poor uneducated white supremacists whom Trump adores and who live in Trump states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan truly believe that isolating the United States from the rest of the world and closing the doors on all immigration will bring them well paying jobs, let them keep on dreaming while California breaks off watching from afar how those who live in Trump country end up falling into a deep sinkhole.

All of the above benefits for California, in case it breaks off from whatever remains of the USA under Donald Trump, are just for starters. The people of California have every right, if they choose to do so, to live in a Trump-free land called The Republic of California, headed by The President of California, a man chosen directly by the people in a country with many resources where the popular vote will really count as it should in every Athenian-like democracy, governed by a President who will not shame Californians and who will not behave like a clown in the Oval Office alienating the rest of the world, a man much more like John F. Kennedy or Franklin Delano Roosevelt than like Donald Trump, a savvy California politician who will rely much more on diplomacy and who will not consider the military option except as a last option. Californians and their children deserve no less.

 But all this can only happen if California takes the bold decision to say farewell to Donald Trump and to his far right cadre of alt-right supporters. The only other option is to remain in the Union and get ready for what can already be anticipated as a very rough four years of Trump doing as he pleases with no one able to stop him, not even Paul Ryan who has already made it clear that he will support President Trump on all his wishes. The 2019 #Calexit Independence Referendum is the only alternative left for those who have already seen in the news how Trump is acting like a loose cannon. Before Donald Trump as President and Commander in Chief decides to initiate a nuclear exchange with China, another country whom he hates, Californians should think of their kids and their future, and maybe then they will arrive at the conclusion that in the case of a US-China nuclear war it is in the best interests of California and Californians not to be a part of the USA anymore.

¿Quién va a ser el propietario del muro Trump?

En una orden ejecutiva emitida el día de ayer miércoles 25 de enero de 2017, el Presidente Donald Trump ordenó el inicio de la construcción de su kilométrica muralla Trump, con la advertencia repetida mil veces de que la construcción del muro sería pagada de un modo u otro por todos los mexicanos como nación.

Hay un detalle que me sigue causando asombro y en el cual ninguno de los más conocidos editorialistas y analistas y comentaristas de TV se han fijado hasta ahora. El detalle no es sobre la construcción del famoso muro, sino por el muro en sí, una vez terminado.

El Presidente Trump ha dicho que todos los mexicanos habremos de pagar por dicho muro, queramos o no. Supongamos que de alguna manera se sale con su propósito y logra sacarnos dinero de nuestros bolsillos para pagar por su muro costoso, ello nos conduce de manera inevitable a una interrogante fundamental: ¿Quién va a ser el propietario del muro?

Uno de los más elementales preceptos del comercio y del derecho internacional es aquél de acuerdo al cual quien paga por algo en su totalidad se convierte en el propietario exclusivo de aquello por lo que ha pagado con su propio dinero. Este derecho de propiedad incluye lo que se conoce como la máxima del jus utendi, jus fruendi, jus abutendi; o sea el derecho al uso, al goce y a la disposición de aquello sobre lo cual se es propietario. Donald Trump como el gran empresario que dice ser debe entender perfectamente bien esto, y si no entiende ni siquiera esto entonces sus capas neuronales están dañadas más allá de cualquier esperanza de posible recuperación.

Y si los mexicanos vamos a pagar por el muro en su totalidad, eso convierte no a los estadounidenses, no al gobierno federal, y mucho menos a su Presidente, en los propietarios legítimos del muro, sino a nosotros los mexicanos. Somo nosotros los que debemos tener pleno derecho al uso, al goce y a la disposición sobre lo que queremos que se haga con dicho muro. De hecho, como financiadores de la construcción del muro, tenemos pleno derecho a que el muro sea construído de acuerdo a nuestras especificaciones, con materiales proporcionados por empresas (mexicanas, desde luego) que sean seleccionadas después de una rigurosa licitación por nosotros mismos, y usando materiales previamente aprobados por nosotros, usando para ello mano de obra seleccionada por nosotros (puros mexicanos, desde luego, para darles empleo a algunos de los muchos que tiene planeado deportar Trump a México). Es lo menos que merecemos, si a nosotros se nos va a cobrar por ello. ¿O no?

Y si Donald Trump no quiere reconocer nuestro derecho legítimo a la propiedad y posesión de algo por lo que nosotros pagamos, entonces en cualquier país del mundo y bajo cualquier legislación desde los tiempos de Moisés y Hammurabi hasta los tiempos actuales ello se definiría como un robo, un atraco, y el que comete el atraco pasaría a ser un ratero, un asaltante, un malhechor, un pillo en toda la extensión de la palabra.

No sería la primera ocasión en la historia en la que el vecino país del norte nos arrebata algo que es nuestro. Ya en 1848 nos arrebató más de la mitad de nuestro territorio, un vil y canallesco atraco por el cual hasta la fecha ninguno de los gobiernos norteamericanos bajo ningún presidente ha pedido jamás disculpa alguna. Pero ahora ya en pleno siglo XXI, en pleno tercer milenio, uno supondría que los norteamericanos ya se civilizaron un poco y ya aprendieron su lección, algo indispensable para quien en numerosas ocasiones ha insistido en convertirse en policía del mundo entero. Pero por lo visto, con el nuevo gobernante Trump a la cabeza, los norteamericanos ya se están haciendo a la idea de que, por ser una potencia militar armada hasta los dientes con bombas atómicas, puede robarle a otros lo que no es suyo, puede quitarle a sus vecinos lo que es propiedad legítima de ellos por haberlo pagado de su dinero hasta el último centavo.

Y si aquello por lo cual se paga fué construído en territorio extranjero, sigue siendo propiedad legítima del que lo pagó, no del país que aloja la obra que fué construída. Razón por la cual una vez terminado el muro y una vez pagado por nosotros los mexicanos hasta el último centavo con dinero salido de nuestros propios bolsillos, podemos reclamar el muro como nuestro y hacer con el muro lo que nosotros queramos, ya sea hacer pintas en el muro, usarlo como barda para mantener fuera de territorio mexicano a los norteamericanos indeseables que sean drogadictos y violadores y criminales, o inclusive tirarlo si se nos pega la gana, porque es nuestro muro y no de los norteamericanos. ¿O no es así, Mister Businessman en la Casa Blanca?

Si el alucinado inquilino de la Casa Blanca insiste en llevar a cabo su canallesca acción reclamando su derecho de bully de que su país se quede con la posesión completa de un muro que nosotros los mexicanos vamos a pagar de cualquier modo hasta el último centavo, cometiendo contra nosotros un atraco en toda la extensión de la palabra, entonces más nos valdría irnos olvidando de que existe un país vecino al norte de México, e ir pensando en establecer alianzas con otros países o bloques de naciones como China o la Comunidad Europea. Al menos esos países y bloques de naciones están un poco más civilizados que los norteamericanos y están en una mayor disposición de respetar las normas del derecho y del comercio internacional. Por lo pronto, voy a desempolvar los viejos discos de Chino Mandarín que tenía desde muy chiquito con la finalidad de ir aprendiendo el idioma, porque a como van las cosas parece que pronto se ofrecerá estar familiarizado con la lengua de la que parece estar destinada a ser la próxima primera potencia mundial llenando el vacío que será dejado por los Estados Unidos tras su pérdida de liderazgo y su pérdida de credibilidad.

NYC stabbed by its most famous denizen

On Wednesday January 24th 2017, and via an executive order issued by the (illegitimate?) President of the United States of America, New York City ceased to be considered by the federal government as a sanctuary city for its tens of thousands undocumented immigrants who fuel the NYC economy. It stands out very prominently that NYC was stabbed in the back by a man whose center of operations as a businessman is precisely New York City and who was born in New York  City.

Donald Trump is going to end up frying New York City one way or the other; it is irrelevant what New Yorkers do or how they try to respond. There are only two possible courses (you might as well call them curses) of action: either abide by the executive order issued by Donald Trump and give up the status of being a sanctuary city, or resist the federal onslaught coming from Washington which from this point on can be considered an enemy of NYC.

In order for the executive order issued by President Trump yesterday to be effective in its intimidation of New Yorkers, federal funds to NYC cannot be cut by a mere one or two per cent, which would hurt somewhat but which would not cripple NYC. All federal funding must be cut by a full 100 per cent. That would really create some pain, and the hope of President Trump is that enough economic pain can be inflicted upon New Yorkers to force NYC to come to grips with its new reality and give up its status as a sanctuary city for undocumented immigrants, yielding to the power of a big stick being wielded by the American Caligula.

There is one major problem, though, in giving President Trump what he wants. If a massive roundup of undocumented immigrants begins in just a matter of days (and all indications are that the mass deportations are set to begin at any moment), New York City stands to lose overnight the important economic contributions that its undocumented immigrants represent. In the case of NYC, one thing that is almost certain to stand out is the fact that the claim of many immigrant hate groups that all of the undocumented aliens are Mexicans is a myth. NYC has distinguished itself by being a multi-cultural multi-ethnic society whose immigrants from all over the world, legal or undocumented, have made important contributions. There are many undocumented Irish living in the USA, especially in NYC, with an estimated 50,000 thousand. There are also many undocumented immigrants from Europe besides Ireland who are bracing anxiously at the thought of being entrapped by US marshalls and being deported together with their families back to Europe. Take Poland, for example. It is not well known that the Trump Tower was built by undocumented polish immigrants whom Trump abused. And in all likelihood Trump knew it all along before he became President! There are also undocumented immigrants from places as far away as Australia, New Zealand, even Russia! It is a baffling mystery of life that some small groups of immigrants gave their support to Donald Trump precisely in NYC. Where are they now that President Trump is coming out against all immigrants from all over the world who have contributed to the rich diversity of NYC?

Many of the undocumented immigrants in NYC from all over the world are living together with their families. They pay taxes. Some of them provide jobs. They help the Big Apple in keeping it alive with a rich diversity of contributions. It stands to reason that if Trump whose home city is New York itself gets his way, every single undocumented immigrant or families of undocumented immigrants will be deported back to wherever they came from, and in so doing it will most certainly deprive NYC from the cash flows those people represent. Although there are no exact figures on the economic damage that would be levied on NYC if it loses all of its undocumented workers of all nationalities to the whims and wishes of its former and most famous denizen, some estimates substantiate the belief that the damage that can be expected will be enormous. The permanent loss of all that labor force is likely to be a painful experience for NYC if it ever comes to pass, with no easy solutions or replacements in sight. In other parts of the country, especially in the agricultural industry, some have tried to replace the loss of undocumented workers after deportation roundups with labor provided by prison inmates, but that approach has failed so miserably that it is no longer considered as a viable option, certainly not a viable option for a city such as New York. It is no wonder that the Mayor of NYC, Bill de Blasio, has ruled out the possibility of joining President Trump in his aggressive nazi-style deportation roundups by refusing to let NYC give up its status as a sanctuary city, and he is not alone in taking this position. Other Mayors have also concluded that, although giving up the income that all the federal programs represent may sound like a crazy idea, losing overnight all of the undocumented labor force that their cities need to keep their cities operational and functioning is even crazier.

NYC is not the only city that is being threatened by a total cut of federal funds in case it refuses to give up its status as a sanctuary cities. There are other cities as well such as San Francisco and Los Angeles that are in the cross hairs of the lunatic-turned politician-turned President Donald Trump. But the case of NYC is very special not just because NYC depends quite a bit on its undocumented workers to sustain its economic well being, but also because it has been the hometown of the same man who now threatens to strangle precisely the very city in which he was born, showing a lack of respect and gratitude for his hometown. But then, what else can be expected from a man without a soul who is guided not by a steady bright man but by his primeval impulses?

As for all those who wish to see a permanent solution to the anguishing dilemma posed against NYC by its most famous denizen, indeed there was a solution. But that solution was in the hands of the people for just one day, on November 8th, 2016, the day the presidential elections were held. Sadly, that day has come and gone. There is no way out now, except for the solution destiny itself may provide. For the time being, New  Yorkers should brace themselves for what will most likely be hard times, and not just NYC but the entire country and even the entire world. Such is the impact that can be expected in the coming months and in the coming years, for what will be at a minimum four painful years from a self-appointed Messiah who is already wreaking havoc and running amok, drunk with the poison of absolute power, just as was anticipated here in this blog nearly ten months ago.

A wrong kind of unity

Shortly after it became known that Donald Trump had won the presidential election in spite of having lost the popular vote by 3 millions votes, almost immediately there were calls for a “healing process” to start, no doubt prompted by the fact that US society was left as a seriously divided nation.

After the defeat of Hillary Clinton, both her and Barack Obama made calls for unity. Hillary called for a “peaceful transition of power”, urging: “We don’t just respect that. We cherish it. It also enshrines the rule of law; the principle we are all equal in rights and dignity; freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values, too, and we must defend them. We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought but I sill believe in America and if you do then we must accept this result,” she added in an emotional concession speech. “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”

Likewise, House Speaker Paul Ryan called for unity following the election of Donald Trump, saying the Republican nominee “just earned a mandate” and adding: “Donald Trump will lead a unified Republican government,” Ryan said, noting that he believed Trump heard the voices of those who felt they were no longer being listened to. “This is the kind of unified Republican government that we set out to deliver. We all need to reeducate ourselves to making America great,” he added, echoing Donald Trump’s campaign slogan.

Trump himself on his victory speech that was delivered Wednesday November 8th 2016, one day after the election results became known, a victory stated that “Now it is time for Americans to bind the wounds of division. It is time for us to become together as one united people”.

Similar calls to unity were made throughout the USA, understood as calls to unity around Donald Trump as president of the USA.

There is just one catch to the unity that Donald Trump is asking from every single American.

The kind of unity that Trump is talking about is unity around him and the aggressive philosophy and ideology he displayed throughout his campaign. We all know what he stands for, and this applies equally well to those who are against him as those who are his unconditional followers and supporters. And if all the American people unite 100 per cent around him as Trump wants, embracing his radical agenda, this would bode ill for the future of the USA as a country.

It is not the first time in history that a prominent or even a controversial figure has asked the people of his country to unite around him and support him in all his actions. History has plenty of examples. Winston Churchill did so when he told his people with World War Two underway: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat”. The people knew exactly the kind of sacrifices Prime Minister Churchill was asking from them, and the Brits united around him wholeheartedly throughout the war until victory was achieved at great cost and sacrifice.

But Donald Trump is no Winston Churchill, quite the contrary, perhaps he represents some of the more disgusting traits that can be expected from a leader.

When Adolf Hitler rose to power, there was a call to all Germans to set aside their differences and unite as one around the leadership of Hitler, which of course meant abiding and even condoning his plan of action. The call for unity was answered, but after what amounted to nothing less than a major catastrophe, it became clear that there should have been a stronger opposition in Germany during the thirties in order to act as a checks and balances against the abuse of power that would soon be displayed. In the end, since there were no checks and balances and thus no separation of powers, an entire generation had to pay a very heavy historical price for such “unity”.

Remember the Soviet Union? All soviets were expected to show unity around the cruel and brutal dictator Josef Stalin. Those not willing to unite around Stalin and show their unity with patriotic fervor were considered traitors. As a matter of fact, that is precisely the reason of why the Soviet Secret Police or KGB was created, to seek out and destroy all those traitors not willing to unite unconditionally around Stalin. The end result was a cult of personality intensified by a massive expenditure in official propaganda designed to place Stalin in the niche of a demi-god. Stalin ruled with an iron fist, hundreds of thousands were murdered without a trial under his orders, yet he was supposed to be the symbol of unity of all those ruled behind the Iron Curtain. Only when the Soviet Union crumbled and fell apart was the unity proved to be a farce, nothing more than a façade that hid gruesome state sponsored against the very same people whose unwavering loyalty was expected at all times.

Closer to home, we can learn something from the legacy left by Hugo Chavez, who as President of Venezuela enjoyed the boom of high oil prices and squandered away the incoming wealth coming from overseas in his socialistic program, commanding the unconditional unity and loyalty of many of his followers. But the oil bonanza went from boom to bust, and his hand-picked successor has established a de-facto dictatorship and has carried Venezuela toward the brink of a social and economic catastrophe. That’s what Venezuelans of today reaped from all the unconditional loyalty and unity they gave Hugo Chavez. And it might be added that Hugo Chavez did not seize power by a coup, he was elected President of Venezuela in 1998 in democratically free elections. And just like in the U.S. in 2016, Chávez’s promises of widespread social and economic reforms won the trust and favor of the primarily poor and working class. By May 1998, Chávez’s support had risen to 30% in polls, and by August he was registering 39%. All that is history, and Venezuela is suffering severe economic hardship, and what’s worse, they don’t have even the faintest idea on how they will be able to pull their country out of the hole, assuming that somehow they can get rid of Nicolas Maduro, the successor of Hugo Chavez.

Those who are followers of Judaeo-Christian spiritual literature should recall that Satan himself also wanted unity in Heaven from all the other angels, but this meant unity around him, around Satan. Clearly, this could not be so, and eventually those angels who did unite around Satan and joined in an open rebellion ended up paying a very heavy price, they all ended up in Hell at the hands of a very angry and defiant angel who has never showed any compassion or mercy to anyone.

So, should Americans heed all the calls to unite and support as one nation the 45th president of the United States, Donald Trump? Considering that he lost the general vote and was beneficiary of a crooked electoral system that can give the presidency to someone who does not win by a majority vote, and also considering his fierce racist and populist rhetoric that places him at a par with Adolf Hitler himself, joining Trump and what he stands for could very well be a recipe for disaster.

But shouldn’t Americans consider the risk of the country coming apart in case they do not unite blindly around the 45th president, Donald Trump? Well, back in Germany 1945 the country became split anyway, splitting into East Germany and West Germany, and this was not even a decision left to the German peoples themselves, it was a splitting imposed upon Germany by the Allies who defeated Nazi Germany.

One of the charms of democracy is that it guarantees a peaceful transition of power. The only kind of unity worthy of consideration is around the tradition that offers an alternative to bloody coups and violent toppling of regimes that can only be ousted by no other means. But that’s as far as it has to go. With regards to embracing the entire agenda of a lunatic, that’s something else, no blank check should be given here, no unconditional support should be granted to things that in the long run will almost certainly bring irreparable damage. If those who ask the American people to gather around Donald Trump and unite with him are really calling for uniting around a loose cannon, that’s the wrong kind of unity.

By now it should be evident that Donald Trump will not engage in any moral considerations in taking his decisions. He is precisely what the great Athenian historian and general Thucydides defined as an immoral leader, a person of violent character who charms men by lying to them and deceiving them, exploiting their fears and rages. Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair magazine, wrote an article entitled Only In America. The article begins with the line: “Only in America could a man whose staff took away his Twitter account be given the nuclear codes”, adding “Only in America could a man who kept a volume of Hitler’s speeches by his bedside rule over the second-largest Jewish population in the world”.

The throngs of women who marched on January 21 2017 at the 2017 Women’s March that gathered at least half a million participants, with the support of hundreds of marches on the same day throughout the U.S. and other countries to the tune of 673 marches worldwide, with 20 in Mexico and 29 in Canada, have already made it clear that they will not unite blindly around a man who has spoken in no ambiguous terms of what he thinks of women as a whole and whose disrespect towards women is by now something impossible to hide. They have already made it clear that they will not be stooges of a man who has been branded by noted Mexican historian Enrique Krauze as being “A sociopath drunk on himself. His religion is hatred. His god is Donald Trump. He is also addicted to empty adjectives. He is not a man of his word or of words as markers of truth”, and who is convinced that Trump is a bully, a megalomaniac, a narcissist and even paranoid -much like the Fuhrer who saw enemies everywhere- craving for attention and not only 15 minutes of fame, willing to do anything to remain in the spotlight. There are many negative descriptions of Donald Trump that can be easily found throughout the net, I will not bother to reproduce them here. As a matter of fact, he may be by now one of the most reviled world leaders in U.S. history, and he has barely started to implement his crazy agenda!

In the 2001 American science fiction film Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the turning point comes about when the ape Caesar yells NO! In the 2017 event of life imitating art, the 2017 Women’s March has already made it clear that many women in America will not stand by idly while the new American autocrat tears apart all of the women’s rights that women fought for so hard for decades. Many American women have united by yelling NO! But what about the other millions of women who gave Donald Trump their vote and who still support  him? Won’t they shield the freshly inaugurated autocrat from attacks coming from the other side? Perhaps. But as soon as those women begin to feel the heat and begin to suffer the dire consequences of the Trump presidency, it is very likely that sooner or later they will start changing their minds making it ever so difficult for the loose cannon in the White House to do his whim with no opposition.

This fight has barely started. Rejecting all those calls to unity that imply American unity around the sociophatic agenda of Donald Trump is a must, for that is the wrong kind of unity that can only carry the entire USA towards its doom. He has already started off with the lowest approval rating for any President in US history. But governmental agendas and policies are not set by opinion polls, and it is a given that Donald Trump really does not care a bit about his approval ratings. What can really worry him is the possibility that in the next elections that will take place for the renewal of Congress, the Republicans may end up losing the comfortable control they now have over both Houses of Congress. The big liar whose now cabinet members promised he would release his tax returns to the American public and so far hasn’t kept his word believes he will be able to dupe again the American people by resorting to the same antics and campaign-by-twitter that put him in the presidency in the first place. But if so, he misses out one very important point: the coming months and years there will be what we might call a learning curve, perhaps a very painful one, where the utopia he promised may very well end up being a dystopia, and during the painful trek it is possible that many of those who now follow him blindly will begin to jump off the bandwagon. The only true danger is that, if he feels he is being left alone, his persecutory delusions may end up catching up on him, and he could take some wild and spectacular decision to make his indelible mark in history but at the cost of carrying the entire nation down the drain with him. Indeed, is is all about a race against the clock. As to who wins and who loses, we cannot foresee such things, but eventually they will become known.

The March held on Saturday January 22 2017 was a good start, the right start, in order to show the beast at the White House that those who oppose him will not remain silent, and that they are willing to put up a fight, after considering that uniting around Trump equals the embracement of his xenophobic, racist, misogynist and ultraconservative extreme right wing philosophy. And when re-election times come for Congressmen and Senators, it will be the proper occasions to review their credentials and cast a vote either for them or against them, depending on who they chose to represent, either the madman at the White House, or the American people. And remove from office if need be all those who took sides against the American people.

Duro golpe de México a cubanos de Miami

Desde hace años, el gobierno de México había mostrado una actitud generosa hacia todos los cubanos que cruzaban el territorio mexicano usando a México como trampolín para llegar a la frontera con Estados Unidos, cruzando a pie la frontera a través de alguno de los puentes internacionales sin ningún problema para ser recibidos y admitidos de inmediato con los brazos abiertos por las autoridades migratorias norteamericanas y obtener así casi de inmediato su residencia permanente en los Estados Unidos sin necesidad alguna de tener que hacer aplicación de solicitud de inmigración legal ante ningún consulado o embajada pasando a una engorrosa y burocrática lista de espera en la que a muchos les toca su turno después de unos diez años, sin necesidad de tener que cumplir con ninguna escolaridad mínima, sin necesidad de tener que someterse a exámenes médicos y tener que aprobar esos exámenes médicos, sin necesidad de nada, todos estos privilegios gracias a la política de “Pies secos, pies mojados” que estaba en vigor en Estados Unidos desde los tiempos en los que Bill Clinton era presidente de Estados Unidos.

La política discriminatoria de “Pies secos, pies mojados”, en el sentido en que era no discriminatoria en contra de los cubanos sino en contra de todos los demás inmigrantes a USA tanto legales como indocumentados de todos los demás países del mundo, terminó hace poco cuando el 12 de enero el presidente Barack Obama le dió fin a esta política que le daba un trato migratorio preferencial a los cubanos nativos de Cuba por sobre todos los demás aspirantes a inmigrar legalmente a los Estados Unidos. Los cubanos eran los únicos beneficiarios por este trato discriminatorio hacia todos los demás países del mundo.

Casi como una nota perdida, pero de enorme importancia y trascendencia sobre todo para los cubanos que residen en Miami y que están a la espera de familiares que ahora residen en Cuba pero que ansían reunirse con ellos, es la que trata de una secuela en México que el fin de la política de “Pies secos, pies mojados” trajo consigo. La nota está perdida entre otras notas periodísticas de mayor envergadura como la investidura oficial de Donald Trump como presidente de los Estados Unidos y la extradición de Joaquín Guzmán Loera “El Chapo”, pero solo es cuestión de tiempo para que la nota comience a resonar en forma estruendosa entre la comunidad cubana de Miami.

La nota en cuestión fue dada este sábado 21 de enero de 2017 por la agencia noticiosa AFP bajo el título “Deportan a 91 cubanos varados”, y dice que México repatrió el viernes 20 de enero (ayer, precisamente el mismo día en el que Donald Trump tomó posesión de la presidencia de Estados Unidos) a 91 cubanos indocumentados que buscaban llegar a Estados Unidos, según informó el Instituto Nacional de Migración (INM) de México, una semana después de que el aún presidente Obama modificara las políticas que favorecían el ingreso de los isleños cubanos a territorio norteamericano. Se trata de 71 varones y 20 mujeres cubanos, que habían llegado a Chiapas, en la frontera con Guatemala, los cuales buscaban obtener en México “un oficio de salida, que les permitiera transitar libremente por territorio mexicano para llegar a los Estados Unidos”, una medida que se otorga a extranjeros no reconocidos por consulados de sus países. En rigor de verdad, es bien conocido entre los cubanos desesperados por inmigrar a los Estados Unidos que una vez pisando suelo mexicano las cosas se les facilitan enormemente, ya que no solo hay albergues caritativos en los que se les dá apoyo, alojamiento y comida a los migrantes de otros países en tránsito hacia los Estados Unidos, sino que podían viajar todavía hasta hace poco y sin mayores problemas desde Chiapas hasta la frontera con Estados Unidos en donde todo lo que tenían que hacer era cruzar la línea divisoria para que, en vez de ser baleados por agentes de la Border Patrol como ocurre con los indocumentados mexicanos, la recepción que tenían gracias a la política de “Pies secos, pies mojados” era inmediata y cordial. En efecto, lo difícil para esos cubanos era llegar a México, pero ya una vez en territorio mexicano podían dar por hecho que la travesía había terminado, y el ingreso por la frontera a los Estados Unidos era un mero trámite. Pero eso ya se acabó.

No es la primera vez que hay una deportación de cubanos de regreso de México a su país de origen. El Instituto Nacional de Migración deportó el viernes 12 de agosto de 2016 a 88 migrantes de Cuba, a quienes trasladó en un avión fletado desde el aeropuerto de Tapachula, Chiapas. La expulsión, que el INM llamó “retorno asistido”, ocurrió después que la embajada de la isla los reconoció como ciudadanos de su país. De los trasladados 72 eran hombres y 16 mujeres. Los migrantes se habían entregado al gobierno mexicano para solicitar un oficio de salida, que les permitiría cruzar el país hasta la frontera con Estados Unidos según denunció la organización Movimiento Migrante Mesoamericano. Hasta abril de 2016 el gobierno mexicano había entregado este documento –que funcionaba como salvoconducto para evitar la deportación- pero a partir de agosto de 2016 empezó a negar el trámite.

La deportación que ocurrió el 12 de agosto de 2016 fue la primera deportación de ciudadanos cubanos desde que en mayo de 2016 entró en vigor el Memorándum de entendimiento en materia migratoria, firmado en noviembre de 2015 durante la visita de Estado del presidente Enrique Peña Nieto a Cuba. El Memorándum fue una enmienda a un acuerdo migratorio anterior establecido en los años 80, y que básicamente estableció protocolos y reglas para la deportación de migrantes irregulares hacia la isla. Durante décadas el documento se mantuvo virtualmente sin aplicación, pues los distintos gobiernos del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) por lo general no devolvían a los cubanos a su país. Cuba tampoco los reclamaba. El tema formaba parte de un acuerdo no escrito de “dejar hacer, dejar pasar” en materia migratoria, y que básicamente consistía en que México permitía el libre tránsito de su territorio a casi todas las personas en viaje a Estados Unidos. Se trata de una costumbre que se mantuvo incluso durante las administraciones del Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), cuando las relaciones diplomáticas entre ambos países se congelaron. La historia cambió en 2014 cuando Barack Obama, el presidente de Estados Unidos, declaró que existía una crisis humanitaria por la llegada de unos 60.000 niños y adolescentes centroamericanos a su país. El gobierno del mexicano Enrique Peña Nieto estableció el Plan Frontera Sur para contener el flujo de extranjeros en la frontera con Guatemala. Y un año después actualizó el acuerdo migratorio con Cuba.

No está claro quiénes fueron los primeros cubanos deportados por México ese 12 de agosto de 2016, ni tampoco el tiempo que habían permanecido en el país. El INM no informó el sitio donde permanecieron durante el período en que la embajada cubana hizo el reconocimiento de ciudadanía. El Movimiento Migrante Mesoamericano asegura que en la deportación participaron las policías Federal y la de Chiapas, así como agentes del Grupo Beta. El objetivo fue “controlar las acciones de protesta e inconformidad de los cubanos”, señala la organización civil. Los ciudadanos expulsados esperaban recibir el mismo trato de otros 4.000 connacionales suyos al inicio de 2016, quienes se habían quedado varados en la frontera entre Costa Rica y Nicaragua. Los migrantes abandonaron la isla después que La Habana y Washington normalizaron sus relaciones, suspendidas desde 1959.

Miles abandonaron Cuba tras el deshielo diplomático iniciado por Barack Obama. La mayoría viajó a Ecuador –que en ese entonces no les solicitaba visa- y de allí siguieron camino hacia el norte hasta que Nicaragua les cerró la frontera, en diciembre de 2015. Un acuerdo regional les permitió seguir el viaje a través de un puente aéreo desde Centroamérica a México, que les entregó a todos una orden para abandonar el país antes de 25 días el cual les permitió entregarse a las autoridades migratorias de Estados Unidos. Pero eso es historia. La deportación de los 88 cubanos desde Tapachula es el crudo despertar del sueño cubano.

Lo duro para esos 91 cubanos que ya se encontraban en México radica en que todos ellos fueron deportados por avión de regreso a Cuba en vez de recibir un permiso temporal del gobierno mexicano para permanecer en México mientras se resolvía el asunto de su situación migratoria bajo la esperanza de que Donald Trump como nuevo presidente pudiera revertir la orden ejecutiva de Obama resinstaurando la política de “Pies secos, pies mojados”. Este tipo de permiso temporal se les podría haber dado sin problema alguno. Pero no se les dió, y bajo el argumento de que todos ellos se encontraban “administrativamente irregulares en territorio mexicano”, todos ellos fueron regresados directamente a Cuba en un avión oficial, tras obtenerse el permiso de Cuba para que la aeronave aterrizara en La Habana.

El impacto de la noticia no fue solo para esos 91 cubanos, posiblemente la mayoría de ellos con familiares en Miami que ya los estaban esperando, que fueron deportados desde México. La decisión del gobierno de México, constituyendo en efecto la adopción de una nueva política en relación a los cubanos aspirantes a inmigrar a Estados Unidos utilizando el territorio mexicano como trampolín, sorprendió a miles de cubanos en varios países de América Latina en tránsito hacia Estados Unidos, y los dejó en un limbo. El mensaje es perfectamente claro: cualquier cubano que sea encontrado en territorio mexicano sin un pasaporte y sin una visa consular expedida legalmente en Cuba, será deportado en avión en vuelo directo de regreso a Cuba, y aunque tenga familiares cubanos en Miami eso ya no le servirá absolutamente de nada.

¿Por qué el endurecimiento en la actitud del gobierno de México, afectando especialmente la reunificación de cubanos con sus familiares en Miami? Esto tiene que ver directamente con el hecho de que cubanos de Miami estuvieron apoyando a Donald Trump para lograr su triunfo en la Florida, estado que en caso de haberlo perdido le hubiera vuelto imposible el poder obtener un triunfo en la carrera presidencial. Puesto de otra manera, el que el antimexicano Donald Trump sea hoy presidente de Estados Unidos se debe en buena medida al apoyo que le dieron muchos cubanos de Miami, dándole la espalda a sus hermanos latinoamericanos y clavándole un puñal en la espalda a los mexicanos, a sabiendas de todas las amenazas que Trump ha proferido en contra de México. Esta fue la gota proverbial que derramó el vaso.

La actitud del cubano de Miami hacia el mexicano en su mayor parte ha sido una actitud de desprecio, de soberbia, incluso altanera, presumiendo cierto aire de superioridad que ahora por primera vez en décadas se está desinflando.

¿Esperaban realmente los cubanos de Miami con familiares en tránsito hacia los Estados Unidos que el pueblo de México les continuara dando la amistad que antes siempre les había dado, cuando gracias a ellos el peor enemigo de México logró ganar el estado de Florida sin el cual Trump jamás habría podido llegar a la presidencia? Hoy los cubanos de Miami están cosechando lo que sembraron, y el resentimiento es enorme.

Es posible que Donald Trump revierta la orden ejecutiva dada por Barack Obama que le puso fin a la política de “Pies secos, pies mojados”. Pero no es tan fácil dar ese paso, ya que si Trump lo hace inevitablemente tendrá costos políticos para él. Por naturaleza, Trump es racista, xenófobo, y ciertamente es un anti inmigrante hasta la médula de los huesos. Restablecer la política de “Pies secos, pies mojados” es algo que va directamente en contra de la naturaleza anti inmigrante de Trump. Por otro lado, de acuerdo con una encuesta dada a conocer por Univisión, una gran mayoría de los encuestados aprueba que se le haya dado fin a la política de “Pies secos, pies mojados”. Trump ya dijo que su primera prioridad será darle empleos bien pagados a los norteamericanos. Obviamente, no es posible que pueda cumplir su promesa si continúa admitiendo a decenas o centenas de miles de migrantes que en su mayoría carecen de estudios universitarios y que estarán compitiendo en contra de los mismos trabajadores norteamericanos por una cantidad cada vez más escasa de empleos.

En caso de revertir la política de “Pies secos, pies mojados”, las mismas organizaciones xenófobas a las cuales Donald Trump les debe también en buena medida su triunfo, como la Federation for American Immigration Reform, pegarían el grito en el cielo y entrarían en franca rebeldía, y considerando que Trump empezó su presidencia con bastantes manifestaciones de protesta en su contra, es dudoso que quiera echarse encima y en contra suya a los suyos propios. Sí, es cierto que Trump le debe mucho a los cubanos de Miami, pero también tiene facturas políticas que tienen que ser pagadas y compromisos con otros grupos de raigambre proteccionista y anti-migratoria a los cuales les tiene que rendir cuentas y que en caso de fallarles se lo pueden recordar en la reelección correspondiente a la carrera presidencial de 2010. No es tan fácil.

En el supuesto de que Trump, presionado por las circunstancias y por consejeros suyos como el racista Stephen Bannon y el procurador general Jeff Sessions que es abiertamente anti inmigrante y racista en contra de todos los latinos, decida dejar en pie la eliminación de la política de “Pies secos, pies mojados”, si con todo esto aún queda algún cubano por allí que quiera aventurarse a cruzar por territorio mexicano, a sabiendas de que en caso de ser detectado en México por las autoridades será deportado en vuelo directo de regreso a Cuba, se topará con otro problema: la construcción del gran muro fronterizo con el que Trump quiere hacer imposible el ingreso ilegal de cualquier indocumentado, incluído el indocumentado que haya salido de Cuba.

A menos de que ocurra un milagro, es posible que pronto, muy pronto, los cubanos indocumentados de Miami que se puedan producir empezarán a sufrir las mismas angustias, el mismo dolor, la misma agonía, que la que enfrentan millones de indocumentados mexicanos. Y si tal cosa llega a ocurrir, el inmigrante cubano en Estados Unidos ya no será ni mejor ni peor que cualquier inmigrante mexicano en Estados Unidos, ambos serán iguales ante la ley, en lo que toca a la dureza que se le aplicará a ambos grupos. Todo para terminar enfrentando por igual las mismas cacerías de indocumentados ordenadas por el gobierno más racista y xenófobo que se haya dado en toda la historia de la Unión Americana. Es hora de que el total de los cubanos de Miami se pongan a pensar de que en esta ocasión, y aunque fuese por esta única ocasión, se le deberían de haber unido a los latinos e hispanos en la lucha que se llevó a cabo para impedir que Donald Trump pudiera convertirse en la pesadilla que hoy se está volviendo realidad en suelo americano. Hoy ya es demasiado tarde para ello.

Post Data: El miercoles 25 de enero de 2017, precisamente el mismo día en el que Donald Trump emitió ya como presidente de los Estados Unidos una orden ejecutiva ordenando la construcción de un gigantesco muro fronterizo con México, el gobierno de México deportó a 69 cubanos regresándolos directamente a la isla de Cuba. El mensaje del gobierno de México es clarísimo: todos aquellos cubanos que residen en Miami y que están alentando a sus familiares que residen en la isla de Cuba a viajar por territorio mexicano para tratar de ingresar a territorio norteamericano, deben avisarle cuanto antes a sus familiares que ni siquiera intenten hacerlo, porque en caso de ser capturados en territorio mexicano van a terminar siendo deportados en vuelo directo de regreso a la isla de Cuba, y todo el dinero que les hayan enviado sus familiares en Miami para hacer el viaje desde algún país de centroamérica o de sudamérica será dinero tirado a la calle, todo ese dinero se perderá y sus familiares se encontrarán de regreso en Cuba sin un solo centavo.

Hay miles de cubanos varados en países como Costa Rica, y viendo el trato que se les está dando en México a todos los cubanos isleños que están llegando a M éxico en calidad de indocumentados, les sale mucho más barato y menos riesgoso regresar en avión a Cuba y desde Cuba usar otro medio que no sea México, por ejemplo viajando hacia Canadá, para desde allí tratar de internarse en territorio norteamericano. La ruta a través de México hacia los Estados Unidos para la migración cubana indocumentada puede considerarse oficialmente muerta, sobre todo a los cubanos de Miami que tengan familiares en la isla de Cuba y que votaron por Trump para darle el estado de Florida y el triunfo a Trump el enemigo declarado de México. Si los cubanos de Miami tienen algún motivo de queja, que no se vengan a quejar a México, que se vayan a quejar a Washington directamente con Trump.

Tan solo aprovecho la ocasión para pedirles a los cubanos en Miami que no anden pidiendo solidaridad ni comprensión al pueblo mexicano para ayudarles a llevarse consigo a sus familiares que residen en Cuba permitiéndoles su estancia ilimitada en México mientras tratan de ingresar a pie a territorio norteamericano. Ellos, los cubanos de Miami, no mostraron ninguna solidaridad ni comprensión con los mexicanos a la hora de que se decidiera quien iba a ser el próximo presidente de la Unión Americana, y ayudaron a ganar al que ya había dejado sentir su odio feroz en contra de todos los mexicanos. Vayan pues los cubanos de Miami desde Miami hasta Washington para pedirle solidaridad y comprensión a ese barbaján. Y se les recuerda que como la ruta de inmigración cubana hacia Estados Unidos a través de México ya ha sido cerrada, la única manera que tendrán sus familiares en la isla de Cuba para hacerlo será viajando primero hasta Canadá sin pasar por México, o bien en vuelo directo desde Cuba hacia los Estados Unidos, aunque para esto último supongo que se requiere primero que nada que haya unas relaciones diplomáticas excelentes entre el gobierno de Washington y el gobierno de Cuba, pero se advierte que el actual inquilino de la Casa Blanca ya ha dejado ver su odio y animadversión hacia el actual régimen cubano, por lo cual se antoja poco probable que los cubanos de Miami podrán sacar de la isla de Cuba a sus familiares posiblemente por mucho tiempo.

Para colmo de males (para los cubanos de Miami con familiares en la isla de Cuba), no será un gringo anglosajón racista ni un mexicano quien le pondrá la horca en el pescuezo a los inmigrantes cubanos que en calidad de indocumentados puedan llegar hasta Miami para reunirse con sus familiares que residen en Florida. Será ni más ni menos un cubano nacido en la isla de Cuba en 1954, Carlos A. Giménez, el alcalde del condado Miami-Dade, el cual ya renegó por completo de sus raíces cubanas y ha declarado que se unirá a Trump en la cacería de indocumentados (esto incluye ahora a los indocumentados cubanos) al tomar la decisión de que bajo su mandato Miami ya no será una ciudad santuario, actitud que dicho sea de paso confirma el hecho innegable de que el híbrido cubano-americano es un ser de ficción que no existe como ya se dijo aquí, ya que a la postre se puede ser cubano o se puede ser norteamericano como lo es el caso de Carlos A. Giménez, pero es imposible ser ambas cosas porque simple y sencillamente va contra natura. Y si los cubanos llegados de Cuba que ya le juraron amor y lealtad a la bandera norteamericana arrodillándose e hincándose ante ella para terminar repudiando el país de origen de sus ancestros no tienen el menor interés ni la menor intención de ayudar a los suyos propios, los cubanos isleños, ¿por qué razón habría de mostrarles mayor afecto México?