The Foreign Service Journal, October 2007

zens to settle in the northern parts of the state of Coahuila. Eventually, the majority of those English- speaking settlers took up arms and defeated General Antonio López de Santa Anna, Mexico’s dictator, in 1836. After nearly a decade as an independent republic, Texas chose to become a state in 1845. That helped set off the Mexican-Ameri- can War (1846-1848), when Mexico rejected Washington’s “invitation” to sell its northwestern territories. In April 1847, Gen. Winfield Scott’s forces took Mexico City, essentially ending the war. Back in Washington, the foes of the war, including the newly elected Rep. Abraham Lincoln, opposed it because they feared that acquiring more territories to the south would strengthen the hand of the slave-owning coalition of U.S. states. Even though slavery in all its forms had already been abolished in Mexico at the outset of its war of independence in 1810, the conquest of these territories would permit its restoration if the pro-slavery coalition was able to run the new territories, as appeared likely. This conflict between pro- and anti-slavery political forces in Washington was ultimately the deciding factor in defining the new border between the two nations. President James K. Polk’s envoy to Mexico City, Nicholas Trist, chief clerk of the State Department, drew an imag- inary line that is very close to the present border, with a view to securing Senate ratification. Although Trist secured Mexican agreement to what would be known as the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Polk callously fired him for not having demanded more Mexican territory in fulfillment of America’s “manifest destiny.” A final twist in the story came several years later when the engineers in charge of planning the transcontinental railroad realized that the ideal pass through the southern range of the Rocky Mountains remained on Mexico’s side of the new border. This led, in 1853, to the Gadsden Purchase, by which the United States acquired an addi- tional swath of territory roughly the size of Pennsylvania, stretching from Las Cruces, N.M., to El Paso, Texas. This deal was presented to the Mexican government on very effective terms: “If you don’t sell it, we’ll take it.” Understandably, this period is recalled very different- ly in each country, which helps explain the radically diver- gent attitudes of Mexicans and Americans regarding their com- mon border, as well as each other. The whole episode is seen in Mexico as a brazen act of conquest and land-grabbing by an abusive neighbor. The resentment planted in Mexico by this painful sequence of events is still present 160 years later. It explains, for instance, why foreigners still cannot own any land in Mexico within 100 kilome- ters (around 62 miles) of the bor- der or less than 50 kilometers (31 miles) from its coasts. And the story is kept alive in schoolrooms throughout the country, where students are taught about the infamy of their northern neighbors by a public education system keen on blaming the Americans, rightly or wrongly, for Mexico’s shortcomings. Conversely, while modern American history books generally acknowledge the unfairness of the way Mexico was treated, there is nothing approaching that sense of injustice. Nor is there a clear understanding in the U.S. of just how painful that history remains for Mexicans. The Lure of the Border The most important factor attracting Mexicans to the border region — and beyond — is the opportunities the U.S. economy offers them to earn far more than they could in their own country. For decades, the Mexican economy has not been creating the jobs required just to employ new entrants into the labor force (currently about 1.2 million a year). In fact, during each of the last five years only 400,000 jobs have been created annually in the regular economy — the one that pays at least the mini- mumwage, collects taxes and confers benefits, and fulfills the pertinent laws and regulations. An equal number of positions have moved into the “underground” economy, which includes street vendors and frequently entails ille- gal commerce. As for the rest, the most resourceful and bold workers try their luck in the United States. But first they must reach the border and find the means to cross the line. It is estimated that 5 percent of the roughly seven million people living on the Mexican side of the border constitute a floating population that is there just until their chance comes to cross to the other side. According to research by the Center for Compar- F O C U S 18 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 7 The most important factor attracting Mexicans to the border region — and beyond — is the opportunities the U.S. economy offers them.