By Matthew Casey

So it’s the NFL’s Conference Championship Weekend and my Pittsburgh Steelers (GOD’s TEAM!) will, for the third time this year, face off against the “hated” Baltimore Ravens for the right to go to the Super Bowl.

For the record, true Steelers fans refuse to accept that Baltimore really has a team. Some of us simply refer to the Ravens as the “old Cleveland Browns.” (To be fair, Indianapolis stole Baltimore’s original franchise, the Colts. But two wrongs do not make a right.)

Some of us also refuse to accept that it was Baltimore who won the Super Bowl in 2000. As far as we are concerned, it was the hapless Browns, who after years of disappointment in the “Mistake by the Lake,” finally won the world championship.

Of course, these assertions anger many Ravens fans visiting NFL chat rooms. But instead of searching for something intelligent and witty to use as a response, (aka the fact that Steelers outside linebacker, James Harrison, who was recently voted NFL Defensive Player of the Year, was arrested last summer on charges of domestic violence after allegedly hitting the mother of his child.) they resort to dubbing Pittsburgh as “Pigsburgh” or “Pissburgh.” (Is this the second grade?)

I have written before about Pittsburgh as a town of immigrants and a symbol of what made this country great during the 20^th century, hard mother#uckin’ blue collar work.

Not everyone is aware of this fact, though, and upon spending a day in dark and gloomy Pittsburgh it is safe to say that many would wonder how anyone would want to live there when they could live in beautiful Raleigh, North Carolina, Southern California or Phoenix, Arizona.

Well, my grandfather, a native of Clairton, PA, (One of the small towns that makes up the metropolis of Pittsburgh) a World War II veteran and ex-steel worker and I were standing on a balcony at the University of Arizona in Tucson, waiting for my sister’s graduation ceremony to begin.

I was smoking a cigarette, looking at the sun drenched mountains and enjoying the surprisingly mild May weather when I turned to him and excitedly said, “Pap, look at the mountains, feel the fantastic climate, isn’t this place gorgeous?”

“Doesn’t beat Western PA,” was his grumbled response.

Indeed, Pap.

But of course, his vision of “Western PA” is a vision of a town and a time long past. Pittsburgh, once a town with a population of over one million, is now home to just 250,000.

In the 1970s, when the Steel Industry began its long decline due to the quality and cost of its product, as well as the bankrupting power of its union, (Sounds eerily similar to the Big Three’s situation in Detroit, huh?) suddenly unemployed Pittsburghers began to leave in droves for places like Mesa, Arizona.

But the Steelers, who were in the process of becoming the only team to win four Super Bowls in six years, became a symbol of the town that once was, as well as many exiled Pittsburghers’ last connection to their hometown. (Sorry New England, Tom Brady might be great and able to date, or father children with any Supermodel he desires, but last year’s Super Bowl loss to the Giants secured the Steelers of the 70s as the greatest pro football dynasty in the modern era!)

As a result, the Steelers now have a national following as big, if not bigger than any other NFL team.

You don’t believe me? Check the Nielson ratings for last week’s Divisional Playoff Game against the San Diego Chargers. The Steelers’ game on CBS had more viewers than the New York Giants vs. Philadelphia Eagles game that was held in New Jersey, the official landfill for the media capitol of the United States.

But I digress, the point is that this country has always been great because of the work and sacrifices made by its people. (When my grandfather was drafted, he lost his dream to become a journalist, and instead spent his career working in the Steel Mills before becoming an insurance salesman.)

Now, facing the challenges of a new century, as a nation, we find our collective backs against the wall.

Pathetic leadership, and a “me first” attitude (Can you say, “America’s Team,” the laughable Dallas Cowboys?) must change if we are to survive and maintain our world status.

To achieve this, we need to reflect on our past success and find a way to revive the work ethic and cooperation that allowed us to achieve so much in such a short period of time.

Exiled Pittsburghers throughout the country possess that connection, and whether you love ‘em or hate ‘em, pay attention to the way they support the Steelers on Sunday against the Ravens, because their “Old School” loyalty and willingness to sacrifice for the greater good are what we need to dig our self out of OUR current national predicament.

]]> http://migranttrail.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/one-of-the-best-weekends-of-the-year-conference-championship-sunday-go-steelers/feed/ 3 steagles80 http://migranttrail.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/us-miitary-mexico-at-risk-for-rapid-and-sudden-collapse/ http://migranttrail.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/us-miitary-mexico-at-risk-for-rapid-and-sudden-collapse/#comments Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:49:23 +0000 steagles80 http://migranttrail.wordpress.com/?p=589 ]]>

By Martin Arvizu

I know it is morbid but I occasionally Google “Mexico news” to see if the cartels have gotten to President Felipe Calderon. I imagine the headline would be, “Calderon assassinated by cartels, Mexico descends into anarchy.” Thankfully that has not happened, yet. But according to Fox News, and the military, they seem to think that is a possibility too.

According to the U.S. Joint Forces Command, the “Joint Operating Environment” (JOE) reports that Mexico along with Pakistan is at risk of “rapid and sudden collapse.” The report states that Pakistan is the more problematic of the two. but notes that Mexico’s government is “under sustained assault and pressure” from the cartels.

I hate to brag, actually I don’t, but I have been saying this for quite awhile now. To top it off it seems the military does not realize how bad it is. There is no turning back now unless Calderon wishes to negotiate with the cartels, which after all his posturing and conservative rhetoric would be impossible. Not to mention the reaction from the United States.

The report also stated that any descent into chaos would demand an American response.

American response to chaos usually involves more chaos. Like I said, the military does not seem to understand how grave the situation is.

I have read plenty of stories where it is reported that the cartels are taking over. The cartels have always been the real power in Mexico. Mexico relies heavily on “Patria Chica,” which means no one in Mexico cares what the Federal government says, and to a certain extent what the governor of the states says either. Patria Chica means you care about what goes on in your own town or city. What happens in Mexico City or at the other end of the country is of little matter.

Drug Lords have long recognized this theme in Mexico and used it to their advantage. Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Baja California Norte as well as many other states support their native cartels. What is happening now is not only the various cartels’ response to government intervention, which by the way allowed and benefited from the business, but also the cartels response to their Patria Chica being disrupted by others.

Only one thing has ever somewhat united Mexicans from all regions and classes: the most deplorable transgression against Patria Chica imaginable: United States intervention.

By Martin Arvizu

In what is a sadly and symbolic gesture by the United States Border Patrol, Friendship Park, a plaza that allowed Mexicans and Americans to gather at either side of the border, will be demolished to make way for a dirt road and a fence, making it off-limits to the public. The park, according to the story by Elliot Spagat, reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, was dedicated to former first lady Pat Nixon in the 1970s. According to the story the park actually held religious services and yoga classes for people on both sides of the border. It is actually a rather beautiful idea which will now be turned into the opposite of what it stood for. What was once a place for conciliation and integration will now be replaced by something intended to create the opposite.

According to the story, Mike Fisher, the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector chief said that the park was being used to pass drugs and immigration documents. “The whole area, from a threat and vulnerability standpoint, was being exploited by criminals,” he said.

I am not sure if Mr. Fisher is aware of it or not but a lot of areas along the border are being exploited by criminals, as well as migrants.

U.S Reps. Susan Davis and Bob Filner, both San Diego Democrats, along with state and local officials attempted to have President-elect Barack Obama and his team to keep the park open, but apparently to no avail.

I have been to San Diego, twice, but unfortunately never visited the park which supposedly sits right on the ocean. It is really, truly sad that such a place which I imagine had a great view and represented one of the more righteous and just aspects of human nature had to give way to our darker, more insecure side.

So criminals exploited it? That is what criminals do. They find ways to break the law. I am sure they could have simply placed border patrol agents there to monitor any illegal activities. Criminals exploit any area they can use to make profits, but not every place they exploit is torn down.

I would hate to believe that the Border Patrol is sending a message to Mexico and Mexicans. I know that the Border Patrol has lost agents to drug dealers and other criminals. They have had rocks thrown at them by people in Tijuana and are understandably frustrated by the porous border and the inefficient matter that the federal government had dealt with it. I hope this is not some sort of payback as the only people hurt by it will be those Mexicans and Americans who used this park for the purposes it was intended, and not the criminals who will simply move further down the border to continue their activities.

By Martin Arvizu

 

I watch my share of Fox News and CNN throughout the day and recently saw as President-elect Obama spoke on the fighting in the Gaza strip. I do not watch the news every day, so I thought maybe he has spoken about the situation in Mexico, but I missed it.  I understand that he is not the president yet and needs to leave the situation alone until he is officially sworn in, but he at least addressed the Gaza situation. With the exception of the Southwest, especially the Border States, the United States government has yet to seriously address the crisis in Mexico.

According this story by CNN, the drug war in Mexico accounted for some 5,400 murders, most of them in grisly fashion. That includes policemen, soldiers and high-ranking government officials not to mention innocent by-standards. This is also happening in Iraq where insurgents are killing policemen and soldiers along with innocents. There it is called an uprising. The US deems that situation serious enough to send American troops there but not to our next door neighbor. The United States has sent money which is dwarfed by how much the cartels have at their disposal. 

I am not sure what the answer to this dilemma.  As someone who is fascinated by Mexico and who tries to read as much as he can on its current and past events I am somewhat perplexed as to how this situation will play out. I believed before this violence started that Mexico was headed for some type of civil strife but not like this. After the Chiapas rebellion in 1994 it was obvious there was plenty of discontent in the country. I read a book that stated that there were cells throughout the country that refused to join the uprising that day. Then there were the strikers in Oaxaca where an American journalist was shot by Mexican soldiers. And now the cartels and their complete and total defiance towards the government. It is enough to baffle most experts on Mexico. Will the cartels win with so many funds at their disposal? How can a country with so much bad blood between its people reconcile enough to win this war? And more importantly if the government does win and the cartels are dismantled, what can they offer as a replacement? All those people employed by the cartels, what will they do then? Migrate to the United States?

Like I said, the Mexican government has a lot to think about in 2009. If the trend continues the body count will more than double as it did from 2007 to 2008. I am not looking for Obama to provide answers right away, as I believe no one can right now. Just some recognition.

By Matthew Casey

Oh SNAP!!

It’s 2009 and Martin and I are ready to once again “get on the microphone” and shamelessly pump our daily thoughts throughout the internet world.

Thanks to our readers, last year was a great success and we are excited to once again resume commenting on the issue that is so polarizing: Immigration.

However, Martin and I have agreed that we will stretch our writing borders to encompass other news and social issues.

This being said, I was sitting with my girlfriend at the kitchen table on New Year’s Eve/Morning when my little sister put on MTV just in time to catch the replay of Hannah Montana/Miley Ray Cyrus’ New Year’s Eve special… (Heaven save us from MTV, a living breathing virus of irrelevant garbage that so many of American youth blindly worship!)

Ok, obviously I am not Mr. Pop Culture. Truth be known, I rely on my girlfriend when I need to know something about celebrities.

So imagine my shock when she dropped on me that this “Disney Darling” is only 15 years old and is dating a 20 year old model/singer named Justin Gaston…

I rushed to my computer and after a quick search of the celebrity blogs, I learned I have definitely been asleep at the “celebrity wheel,” as this news broke back in September…

Back at the kitchen table, I carefully searched for the words to express my outrage over this seemingly illegal union when I thought, “How many anti-illegal immigrant activists have children for whom they bought Hannah Montana/Miley Ray Cyrus CD’s, posters and concert tickets for Christmas?”

Of course there is no way to answer that question, but I am willing to bet there are at least a few.  

Putting down my glass of Champagne, I asked my girlfriend, who happens to disagree with me and my stance on immigrant rights, if Ms. Montana’s relationship with Mr. Gaston is not statutory rape and therefore illegal?

I then asked her if “illegal is illegal” as it pertains to immigrants, then why would people who make their argument against immigrants by saying this would stand for something that at least appears to be a more heinous act than someone simply sneaking across a line in the sand?

To her credit, my girlfriend, a wise and beautiful woman, did not take the bait I so carefully laid in front of her. Instead, after saying that she is also appalled by Ms. Montana and Mr. Gaston’s relationship, she introduced the idea of “consent.”

In other words, if Ms. Montana and her Pops, Billy Ray Cyrus consent to Mr. Gaston’s advances, then this can not be statutory rape.

I know what you are thinking, that I am unfairly assuming that Ms. Montana and Mr. Gaston a participating in sexual relations…

You are right, and I do not know, nor do I want to know the details of their relationship.

But I was once a 20 year old man, (though not a model) and I remember vividly my motivations when it came to interacting with the opposite sex.

But I digress. To be honest, I could care less about Ms. Montana and Mr. Gaston.

What kills me is the potential double standard it unveils.

How could any anti-illegal immigrant activist who uses blanket statements like “illegal is illegal” to disqualify all illegal immigrants from a chance of attaining the “American Dream” spend their hard earned money on Hannah Montana paraphernalia for their own underage children when there is even a hint that she may be participating in something illegal??? (Sorry baby, I just do not buy the idea that a 15 year old girl OR boy has the maturity and emotional capacity to understand sex enough to consent to it with someone who is 20.)

So anti-illegal immigrant activists, if “illegal is illegal,” please take the time to leave a comment that justifies you supporting your child’s “fandom” of someone participating in what at least appears to be not only illegal, but morally skewed enough to make the Reverend Jerry Falwell roll over in his grave.    

By Martin Arvizu

Many people think that just because Barack Obama was elected president that the world will suddenly change for the better. Sure the fact that a black man (although he is half white), was elected to the presidency of the United States during my lifetime is an unbelievable event, and in my opinion speaks for majority of Americans’ intelligence. But after all the rhetoric is gone the reality that Obama is still a politician will set in.

Mark Drajem’s article in Bloomberg reiterates my point. Obama will understandably move the overhauling of NAFTA down a couple of notches on his to do list. With the economy in shambles and looking worse everyday he really has no choice. I just hope Mexican President Felipe Calderon does not think it was his tough words that changed Obama’s mind.

According to the article Calderon stated that changing NAFTA would be “very bad” and that “everybody is going to lose,“ in responding to Obama’s comments early on in his campaign that he was open to withdrawing from the agreement if Mexico refused to negotiate parts of the plan. Of course now with the economy the way it is and domestic problems high on his agenda NAFTA is no longer as bad as he first made it out to be, and fixing it would be the more favorable plan.

Some say it was a political tactic to win over the state of Ohio. Again people, no matter how charismatic he is, Obama is still a politician.

It will be interesting to see though as to how a conservative such as Calderon works with Obama. Calderon who still has 4 years left on his six-year term will get to work with arguably the most liberal president the United States has had and one who is not part of a politically elite family. This is unlike Calderon who is an old-fashioned, run of the mill, conservative technocrat who believes taking away even more from the Mexican people is the only way to Mexico’s prosperity; a dogma I can bet Obama does not believe in.

In a recent survey published by Reuters, Felipe Calderon’s approval rating dropped to 57 percent. Considering that those conducting the surveys probably and understandably avoided some of the worst areas of the country I bet that number could have easily dropped another ten or more points. Considering his country’s economy depends heavily on ours, not to mention his losing war against the drug cartels, I do not believe his approval ratings will hit Bush-like lows but they could get down to the thirties before his tenure as president is over.

Obama does need Mexico’s help though, and vice versa. Mexico is the United States second largest export market for agricultural products, while Mexico ships over 80 percent of all its exports to the United States. As Americans begin spending less, so too does Mexico. Mexico provides us more oil than any other country besides Canada and their oil reserves are dwindling. They also provide us plenty of migrants as well, whether we want them or not, which NAFTA forgot to include in its many components.

Nevertheless, the relationship between Mexico and the United States has entered a new stage. Unfortunately it comes at a bad time for both countries. Mexico is in dire need of more help from the US in its battle against the drug cartels. Without it there is a good chance that the Mexican government may lose to the better financed and armed cartels. With help the conflict may turn into a drawn out civil war which some Mexicans may not necessarily agree with. The mass media may never acknowledge it, but loyalty to the cartels amongst the population in Mexico is rampant.

With the big-three auto makers about to shut down without U.S. bailout money, how much time and money will Obama be willing spend to secure for Mexico? At times like this, governments are apt to become more protectionist in their dealing with other countries and not so easily swayed in to giving away funds that are so badly needed at home. And even if Obama were willing to help out Mexico with money and manpower would the American people be so inclined given our situation?

By Matthew Casey

Amongst speculations over who will serve in President-Elect Barack Obama’s cabinet, the big news this week was that the Big Three again sustained major losses during the third quarter, and that they will need at least $25 billion in government aid to avoid bankruptcy.

Granted, a collective failure of the Big Three would be devastating to our already vulnerable economy, but what has not been widely reported is the effect that it would have on Mexico, and possibly illegal immigration.

Both General Motors and Ford maintain huge production plants in Mexico, where they are major pillars of employment.

So what will happen if these companies fail and Mexican plants are forced to close, leaving a large number of Mexico’s “middle class” unemployed?

Well, those people would be faced with the same choice the rest of Mexico has: Do I stay here, where there is no work, and live in poverty? Do I go to work committing illegal and dangerous acts for the cartels? Or do I try my luck with the U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

Both Mexico’s current predicament with its drug cartels, and the fact that many GM and Ford employees are most likely accustomed to leading legal, and at least semi-affluent lives, indicate that many will choose vortex of the border and the potential consequences of living anonymously in the United States.

It has been reported that failure of the Big Three will result in the loss of as many as “one out of ten” U.S. jobs. Add to this the number of Mexican employees for GM and Ford turned illegal immigrants, and we have the ingredients for a brutal domestic competition for jobs.

I am willing to bet that Mexican GM and Ford employees most likely have lower salary and benefit expectations than their U.S. counterparts.

Therefore, in a bad economy where employers are looking for the most cost effective way to operate their business, illegal immigrants who used to work for GM and Ford in Mexico will most likely win a majority of U.S. jobs.

This situation sets the stage for an even harsher backlash against illegal immigrants than the one we have witnessed in the past year and a half.

Look, I am not advocating a “bailout” for the Big Three. The truth is that I do not know what the best course of action is.

But here is what I do know. If the Big Three do receive a bailout, those who work for GM and Ford, both here and in Mexico, are reliant on those in charge to come up with a “game changer,” something that will stabilize these companies for the long term.

A bailout does not guarantee this because as Thomas Friedman suggested in his column yesterday, for too long, the Big Three have gotten away with being dinosaurs in a free market economy, refusing to innovate or improve quality.

It is embarrassing to me as a patriot that since the end of World War II, one of the most powerful industries in the world has continuously spiraled into its current predicament, the brink of oblivion.

But at the same time, I do not feel sorry for them. The fact is that the Big Three find themselves in this situation as a result of their own decisions, which were mostly arrogant and short sighted.

Despite President Elect Obama’s indication that he wants to help the Big Three, both President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson have said they do not plan to take action to save them.

Therefore, the question is whether or not the Big Three can hold on until Obama is inaugurated and he can provide the cash to keep them afloat.