Los Angeles Times Interview : Jose Angel Pescador

Monday afternoon, Consul General Jose Angel Pescador Osuna was checking the accuracy of the consulate’s new manual to inform Mexicans living in Los Angeles about their civil rights. While reading through the 225-page text, he received an urgent phone call: There was a tape being broadcast on television showing Riverside County sheriff’s deputies in hot pursuit of a pickup carrying Mexican nationals.

That controversial chase, which ended in the beatings of two of the truck’s passengers, has led to two deputies being placed on administrative leave, the establishment of local and federal investigations of the incident and a formal apology from the U.S. government.

The episode goes to the very heart of matters that Pescador, 51, has been tackling for the last 18 months. In his second tour as consul general for Los Angeles, Pescador has focused on countering the increasing incidence of hate crimes against Mexican nationals, diffusing growing tensions surrounding the migration issue and trying to stop the use of excessive force by law-enforcement agencies.

Pescador earned master’s degrees in education and economics in Mexico; he is currently a doctoral candidate in the economics of education at Stanford University. He began his career in education, becoming president of the National Pedagogical University, one of Mexico’s most prestigious institutions. But he eventually returned to his home state of Sinaloa, where he became a mayor and, later, a federal deputy--the equivalent of a congressman.

Pescador joined his nation’s diplomatic corps in 1990, when he came to Los Angeles as consul general. He was recalled to Mexico roughly two years later and named secretary of public education. He returned here in 1995. Pescador has been married for more than 30 years to Efigenia; they have two sons, both now in graduate school.

In the midst of the international tensions caused by last week’s beatings, Pescador made a point of reasserting his commitment to continue with the law-enforcement meetings he has been conducting in Los Angeles. But he also emphasized that the Mexican government would “not permit such abuse” of its citizens.

*

Question: You have often talked about the existence of several “bad apples” in the Los Angeles Police Department. How bad is the problem?

Answer: Our government’s position is that all American law-enforcement authorities must have respect for our nationals. In 1995, we noticed that some of our citizens were victims of excessive police force--especially by the Los Angeles Police Department. Now, this is not to say all police officers are bad--but once we recognized the problem, we held meetings with the LAPD, as well as the Police Commission, to express our concerns. So we have established a dialogue, and since our last meeting, both the police and the sheriff’s department have asked us to keep in close communication with them.

In general, we’ve noticed a growing climate of intolerance that I didn’t notice when I was here in 1990. But by 1995, Mexican nationals were experiencing a growing situation of fear and tension.

We plan to provide information to Mexicans living here that they must respect the laws of this country; we’ve just finished a “citizens rights” manual that we will distribute through presentations, schools and community organizations.

Q: How can your government stop this growing U.S. hostility toward undocumented Mexicans?

A: We are taking various approaches. First, we must have a common understanding of our joint problems . . . .

Now, the United States has a right to fight for its own sovereignty against illegal migration. But these people do have what we call “interim rights”--which are basic human rights.

. . . Probably, the most important [point] is the need to support the economic programs in Mexico--with particular focus on the 10 regional areas where many of these people are migrating from. Finally, we need to define a new way of looking at our joint labor markets. We have already started by developing regional committees among several American border states, but we need to do more to help stop this migration.

Q: What is your government’s position on the immigration bill recently passed in the House of Representatives?

A: It is like a new version of Prop. 187--which our government was against. As for the new bill passed, it was done without a complete analysis of the situation.

First, we disagree with eliminating education for kids and health care for their parents--just because they are not documented. We have already received the first positive news from Texas, because they are not going to deny education to kids. So this is a good beginning, and we believe the bill will be stopped in the Senate--if not vetoed by President Clinton.

Q: How can undocumented workers expect health benefits when U.S.-born citizens are not eligible?

A: This is more an issue of inequality between classes and not about immigration or migration, because all over the world, the rich are becoming richer and the poor are getting poorer.

This is something that has to be explained carefully. There are budgetary reasons why everybody is not receiving health care. But these people are already here, and they are paying taxes. So there is a need for a very careful discussion about what is happening with taxes and how these expenditures are spent.

Q: How does your government feel about the growing “English-only” movement?

A: We don’t have an official government statement--but to enact a law is really unnecessary. Everybody here knows that they have to speak English to do official business. So, I don’t see the necessity of establishing English as the official language. If a person can speak English, they will, but if they can’t, someone has to help them.

Q: Do you still maintain that even undocumented immigrants help the U.S. economy?

A: Yes! If one analyzes certain American industries, you will find that 50% are Latino--which, basically, means Mexicans here in Southern California.

For the last 10 years, people have been coming here because of the difficult times in Mexico. The average undocumented worker has at least nine years of schooling--and that represents a lot of human capital leaving Mexico. So, Mexicans come here to offer their human capital, and they pay taxes and Social Security. So this is all an investment and contribution to this country, not to Mexico.

Q: Will dual citizenship for Mexican immigrants slowly erode U.S. sovereignty?

A: The provision is called the “preservation of Mexican nationality” and it is currently under discussion. It may be approved this year.

However, the idea is to protect Mexicans, because many migrants don’t acquire American citizenship out of fear of the Mexican constitutional rule that they may forfeit their property in certain regional areas of Mexico.

If they have been here for 30 years, have a family and are paying taxes, they will probably stay. This law gives them the possibility that if they return to Mexico, they will keep their Mexican rights.

Q: Some Americans see the Mexican migration as an invasion and a threat to their living standards. Is there any truth in this perception?

A: We can’t speak of this migration as an invasion, because, before 1848, when this region became America, there were many Mexicans living here . . . . The concentration of Mexicans is only in a few states, namely California, Illinois, New York and Texas--not exactly an invasion.

At the Mexican consulate, we’re interested in dignifying our community; we are launching a program to encourage Mexicans to clean up their streets and develop a better relationship between their children. We want to attack this gang problem . . . because we see that it is Mexican Americans killing Mexican Americans.

We admit we have some problems with people who commit crimes and others who participate in gangs--but they comprise a very low proportion of the almost 4.5 million Mexicans living in Southern California. The Mexican government does not want the average Mexican identified with these people. It is our policy to stop all criminal activity by putting them in jail and giving them due process of law.

Q: Is the United States subsidizing Mexico’s economy by serving as a release valve for brewing unrest?

A: In 1995, it is true that Mexicans sent approximately $3.6 billion home--which is a significant amount. Most of this went directly to families; all Mexicans who can continue must do this because it is a way of avoiding social unrest.

Still, the United States has some international responsibility to support recovery programs in Mexico, because we are neighbors. Last year, there was a lot of debate, because President Clinton approved a line of credit for Mexico. However, in 1995, Americans have to realize Mexico paid more than $30 billion in interest, and when you add this sum to the debt we owe American banks, we paid over $42 billion in interest last year. So, Mexico is not asking for aid. Most of these funds went to create job opportunities.

Q: What is Mexico actively doing to stop this migration?

A: The Mexican Constitution guarantees the right of movement from one area to another, but we don’t want our nationals to leave. The most important thing we are doing is trying to create jobs in Mexico and get the economic recovery going, while informing natives about their rights and protecting them from criminals.

Now, we do have this large birthrate, even though we have slowed from our growth rate of 3%, 10 years ago, to today’s level of only 1.8%, . . . which we achieved in a very conservative religious environment.

However, NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement] was created to address this problem and the agreement has only been in force for two years, but it will eventually bring about a lot of changes in living standards. It is difficult for Americans to see this at this point. Just 15 years ago, everything was controlled by the state, but today both our economy and our politics are open and going through many dramatic transitions.

Q: How are you dealing with the tension between the African American and Mexican American communities?

A: We have a lot of problems to work on together. African American communities see Latinos moving into their neighborhoods, and they feel it is an intrusion.

But these groups--when you include the Asians--will be a majority in about 40 years. So there is reason for all of us to work together to fight for a better standard of living by electing people who will defend our rights.

Our ethnicity can serve more as a reason to unify rather than divide. So it pains me when I see all these school confrontations in South-Central L.A. This really worries me. When I speak at schools, I encourage more tolerance, unity and alliances--especially during our celebrations of May 5, but also during Black History Month.

Q: How can Mexico continue to defend NAFTA as good for the United States after the large 1995 trade imbalance?

A: We think it is very, very beneficial for America--but maybe not so much in the beginning. We recognize there are problems concerning agricultural produce and trucks crossing the border, but we each have to analyze this problem in the framework developed by the agreement.

The reason for the big trade imbalance in 1995 has more to do with the devaluation of the peso, which couldn’t be avoided. But, in terms of the normal operation of NAFTA, it is going to be a win-win situation, and that is why all over the world these regional groups are coming together to make all economies work better.

Q: Why should Americans trust a political system that seems to only keep the same party in power?

A: We are much more open today than before. In the past, it would have been difficult to have this kind of discussion, but we now understand that it is part of our responsibility. Nowadays, there is a lot of debate among all parties about the political future of Mexico and what mechanisms will foster more democracy in the country. I predict that in the 1997 election, there is going to be a very close competition among the top parties. We are all growing.