This is becoming one of my top 3 favorite podcasts. The guests and questions are top notch. They are the kind of conversations that are worth listening to more than once. This is my second listen 🎧 as I heard it on apple podcasts earlier in the week.
This Treviño guy is interesting. I would really like to hear him interviewed by someone with better grounding in the history of the Frontera. He mentions Indian raids his ancestors experienced, but he doesn’t mention Comancheria. He mentions the Plan de San Diego in passing as a Carrancista plot, without explaining that it remains both a mystery (the signatories all seem to be fictional, and the Carranza government vociferously denied any connection to the plot) and a nothingburger). My theory is that it was another German active measure to distract the U.S. during WWI. Treviño knows his history of the Frontera but he’s got some very unconventional angles on it. It triggers my skepticism, but I still want to give him a fair hearing. Maybe it’s the podcast format that makes it difficult for him to flesh out his ideas or delve into nuance, or maybe it’s my own failure to understand him, but he’s got some pretty spicy takes, bien picante. He also shows some original thinking that I got right away, and I wish he could have developed those ideas more. I don’t know if I should list all my points of agreement, disagreement, and WTF bewilderment I have with some of his statements. Let me throw out a few: • The Mexican State is hostile to the U.S.? No, they are suspicious of the U.S. government, but not hostile. Not all the time, but at times. And given the history of the U.S. in Central and South America, we shouldn’t be surprised that Mexicans harbor suspicions. Given the hostility of Trump and the maga faction toward Mexico (not to mention a lot of outright racism), it should not be surprising that doubt, skepticism, and suspicion has resurfaced. In geopolitics, diplomacy, and world affairs, Mexico and the U.S. are often not on the same page. This is a strength on our relationship, not a weakness. Mexico jealously guards its diplomatic prerogatives. This is a good thing because 1) we don’t want friends that only agree with us, and 2) Mexico maintains its credibility as an intermediary between the U.S. and Latin America. Did NAFTA pan out as a vehicle for political transformation? Treviño says no, I say yes. When President George H.W. Bush began NAFTA discussions with Mexican President Gortari after 1988, Mexico was a single-party dictatorship under the PRI. Between 1996 and 2000, Mexico transitioned to a legitimate multiparty system. Mexico has only been a democracy for 24 years. (To interject some personal opinion, I’m very skeptical about Lopez Obrador’s populist Morena party. I fear they will move Mexico away from multiparty democracy and back to single party rule. But to be fair, I have the same worries about the maga faction that has a hold on the GOP.) Economically, NAFTA has eased immigration issues. In 2016, the number of Mexicans crossing into the U.S. was net zero, meaning just as many were returning to Mexico as were entering the U.S. Today, the problem isn’t Mexicans entering the U.S., it is people from Central and South America, as well as many other parts of the world. But Treviño makes an interesting point about using NAFTA as leverage for increased security cooperation. I wish there was more time for him to lay out specific proposals. New negotiations for NAFTA III begin in 2026, to be ratified (or not) in 2030. I think there will be an opportunity to increase mutually beneficial trade cooperation that will also provide an opportunity for security cooperation. These are some of my basic reactions. One thing on which I strongly agree with Mr. Treviño is that the “Border Crisis” isn’t really about immigration. Immigration is a political football, and could be solved, WOULD have been solved, but for a certain politician’s need to use immigration as a campaign issue. I’ll just say it: Trump betrayed the conservative immigration hawks in his own party that were on the verge of imposing a solution on the Democrats. The “bipartisan border bill” was 80% of what the immigration hawks wanted, and they got it despite being a minority in the Senate. Anyway, I’d like to hear more from Joshua Treviño, but I’d greatly appreciate it if you could bring in someone with more background in this area to interview him. Sorry this is so long. Believe me, I could have written a lot more.
I love the podcast and listen to every new episode. The southern border is a serious issue and should be examined in depth. However, I think you need a more serious guest than Joshua Trevino. He was not up to your usual high standards. His idea of threatening Mexican trade only hurts the American consumer. Threatening our supply chains and food supplies does not make sense. Complex problems demand serious discussions.
It hurts the Mexican economy a lot more. Pressuring Mexico by ceasing trade agreements is far better than cheap consumer goods if our goal is creating a viable, long-term ally in border security. I'm 100% positive us Americans can live without Mexican industry if a trade war breaks out, because us Americans prioritize the security of a national border over the decadence of cheap goods.
This is becoming one of my top 3 favorite podcasts. The guests and questions are top notch. They are the kind of conversations that are worth listening to more than once. This is my second listen 🎧 as I heard it on apple podcasts earlier in the week.
This Treviño guy is interesting. I would really like to hear him interviewed by someone with better grounding in the history of the Frontera. He mentions Indian raids his ancestors experienced, but he doesn’t mention Comancheria. He mentions the Plan de San Diego in passing as a Carrancista plot, without explaining that it remains both a mystery (the signatories all seem to be fictional, and the Carranza government vociferously denied any connection to the plot) and a nothingburger). My theory is that it was another German active measure to distract the U.S. during WWI.
Treviño knows his history of the Frontera but he’s got some very unconventional angles on it. It triggers my skepticism, but I still want to give him a fair hearing.
Maybe it’s the podcast format that makes it difficult for him to flesh out his ideas or delve into nuance, or maybe it’s my own failure to understand him, but he’s got some pretty spicy takes, bien picante. He also shows some original thinking that I got right away, and I wish he could have developed those ideas more.
I don’t know if I should list all my points of agreement, disagreement, and WTF bewilderment I have with some of his statements. Let me throw out a few:
• The Mexican State is hostile to the U.S.? No, they are suspicious of the U.S. government, but not hostile. Not all the time, but at times. And given the history of the U.S. in Central and South America, we shouldn’t be surprised that Mexicans harbor suspicions. Given the hostility of Trump and the maga faction toward Mexico (not to mention a lot of outright racism), it should not be surprising that doubt, skepticism, and suspicion has resurfaced.
In geopolitics, diplomacy, and world affairs, Mexico and the U.S. are often not on the same page. This is a strength on our relationship, not a weakness. Mexico jealously guards its diplomatic prerogatives. This is a good thing because 1) we don’t want friends that only agree with us, and 2) Mexico maintains its credibility as an intermediary between the U.S. and Latin America.
Did NAFTA pan out as a vehicle for political transformation? Treviño says no, I say yes. When President George H.W. Bush began NAFTA discussions with Mexican President Gortari after 1988, Mexico was a single-party dictatorship under the PRI. Between 1996 and 2000, Mexico transitioned to a legitimate multiparty system. Mexico has only been a democracy for 24 years.
(To interject some personal opinion, I’m very skeptical about Lopez Obrador’s populist Morena party. I fear they will move Mexico away from multiparty democracy and back to single party rule. But to be fair, I have the same worries about the maga faction that has a hold on the GOP.)
Economically, NAFTA has eased immigration issues. In 2016, the number of Mexicans crossing into the U.S. was net zero, meaning just as many were returning to Mexico as were entering the U.S. Today, the problem isn’t Mexicans entering the U.S., it is people from Central and South America, as well as many other parts of the world.
But Treviño makes an interesting point about using NAFTA as leverage for increased security cooperation. I wish there was more time for him to lay out specific proposals. New negotiations for NAFTA III begin in 2026, to be ratified (or not) in 2030. I think there will be an opportunity to increase mutually beneficial trade cooperation that will also provide an opportunity for security cooperation.
These are some of my basic reactions. One thing on which I strongly agree with Mr. Treviño is that the “Border Crisis” isn’t really about immigration. Immigration is a political football, and could be solved, WOULD have been solved, but for a certain politician’s need to use immigration as a campaign issue. I’ll just say it: Trump betrayed the conservative immigration hawks in his own party that were on the verge of imposing a solution on the Democrats. The “bipartisan border bill” was 80% of what the immigration hawks wanted, and they got it despite being a minority in the Senate.
Anyway, I’d like to hear more from Joshua Treviño, but I’d greatly appreciate it if you could bring in someone with more background in this area to interview him.
Sorry this is so long. Believe me, I could have written a lot more.
I love the podcast and listen to every new episode. The southern border is a serious issue and should be examined in depth. However, I think you need a more serious guest than Joshua Trevino. He was not up to your usual high standards. His idea of threatening Mexican trade only hurts the American consumer. Threatening our supply chains and food supplies does not make sense. Complex problems demand serious discussions.
It hurts the Mexican economy a lot more. Pressuring Mexico by ceasing trade agreements is far better than cheap consumer goods if our goal is creating a viable, long-term ally in border security. I'm 100% positive us Americans can live without Mexican industry if a trade war breaks out, because us Americans prioritize the security of a national border over the decadence of cheap goods.