Human Development Reports and soccer matches

This past week, two transcendent events took place in Mexico's public life:

1. The launching of the 2006-2007 National [Mexico's] Human Development Report: migration and development by the United Nations Development Programme; and

2. The Gold Cup final (Mexico vs. the US!).


At first sight, they are totally unrelated: one was the presentation of a serious study on wellbeing as a function of social, economic and political variables in Mexico; the other was an excuse to sit in a cantina, get a corona or a tequila -depending on your budget- and put your brain on hold while giving free rein to the most unsophisticated impulses.

However, both share a leit motiv: migration (Bob Marley would sing "Exodus! Movement of the people").

The game, though physically played in Chicago (as could be asserted by the background of giant steel buildings), took place in a parallel dimension of Mexico. The spectators painted the stadium green (with the odd red and blue dot) and the cries of "¡México, México!" obliterated all other sounds and thoughts most of the game. When the Americans scored a majestic second goal -placing them ahead 2 to 1- silence reigned in the stadium.

The home team -that is, Mexico- lost.

In Chicago -a city that along with NY and LA project the image of urban America at home and all over the world- the Americans were the foreigners.

The eleven million Mexican-born individuals who -with and without legal documents- live in the States (according to the HDR), are just the tip of the iceberg, as any one who's travelled to any American city can observe. The phenomenon of migration is colossal and its momentum unstoppable. One of the conclusions of the HDR is that "policies of border tightening do not have the expected effect on the reduction of migratory flows", and that "in spite of the efforts to stop it, even of a coercive nature, migration will continue as long as inequalities prevail".

A scenario where the "locals" play as the visiting team in their own country could understandably be disturbing for many societies (Germans may think of Turks, the French of Algerians, and so forth). However, before turning to xenophobia and repressive measures (whether it be building walls or conducting selective raids), efforts must be made to bridge the huge gaps in opportunities between the haves and the have-nots.

We, the migrants, must also bear our share of the burden. Mexico, in particular, cannot live with the second richest man in the world while the state of Chiapas has a human development index just below that of Cape Verde's (0.718 vs. 0.722).

Migration has its pros (exercising the human right to free movement has value on its own), but it's not all its cracked up to be. Having millions of supporters over "on the other side" didn't save us from a humiliating loss against the US.

Metaphorical?

Over and out.