Vid: What Mexican Wrestling Tells Us About the Immigration Debate


"What Mexican Wrestling Tells Us About the Immigration Debate," produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning. Original release date was December 10, 2013 and original writeup is below. Go here for links, resources, and downloadable versions of this video.

The professional wrestlers squaring off in Watsonville, California are unlike any you'd find on a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) bill. In one corner, there's "el Patron de la Migra" - a border patrol agent - symbolizing America in all its brash, trash-talking swagger. And in the other corner there's Anibal Jr., a masked Mexican luchador who is a hero to the Latino community.

"It's Batman and the Joker. It's Superman and kryptonite. You have the ultimate good vs. the ultimate bad. And, for the most part, our shows are targeted to the Latino community, so the luchadores are the good guys," says promoter Gabriel Ramirez.

Ramirez founded Pro Wrestling Revolution (PWR), which sponsors lucha libre events for Latino audiences all over California, five years ago.

Even though the border patrol agents are cast as villains, an odd thing happens after the match. "After the cameras are turned off, the lights turned off, and the show's over, you'd be surprised at that small little line by the locker room of Latinos who want the autographs of la Migra," Ramirez says.

Approximately 4 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.

NEXT: Reason TV: The 5th Annual Nanny of the Year Awards: Jailing Photogs, Banning Chipotle, and Halle Berry!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What Mexican Wrestling Tells Us About the Immigration Debate

    Mexican wrestling is the first anti-immigration argument I've ever felt might be valid.

    1. re: Live Free or Diet,

      Mexican wrestling is the first anti-immigration argument I've ever felt might be valid.

      Don't be so bigoted. You have yet to see a single black&white; movie featuring the greatest Mexican folk hero: El Santo, el enmascarado de plata.

      You will wish every Mexican came to live here after that.

      1. Strictly kidding. A mexican lady taught my mother how to cook.
        If lowbrow entertainment were a problem for me, I'd have to stop going to these fights where hockey games keep breaking out!
        The Sainted Silvermask Man (more or less) is a strange enough idea to watch.

  2. The announcer spoke in English not Spanish. How "Mexican" are these people? I'm guessing they are to Mexico as I am to Scotland.

    1. Are you voting based on which candidate is likely to let the most Scottish people enter the US illegally?

      1. Only true Scotsmen.

        BTW, on my visits to Scotland I found the women to be among the most attractive and friendly in the world. Regretted being married.

  3. The debate is phony?

    1. And irrelevant, since it is already settled: there will be a path to citizenship, period. Not negotiable.

      1. There already is a path to citizenship: immigrate legally.

        1. Wow good call Tulpa good thing we have you around for these revelations. It's not like legal immigration is basically impossible and that's why people immigrate illegally, no, they just need Tulpa, Teller of Banalities to explain how they should just immigrate legally.

          1. Lots of people do immigrate legally, and those people are among the most adamant opponents of amnesty. Wonder why? Oh yeah, because they're nativist xenophobes (according to Reason), despite being non-native and xeno.

            Listen, you want to reform the legal immigration system, I'm right there with you. Providing shortcuts for lawbreakers isn't the way to do it.

            1. Providing shortcuts for lawbreakers isn't the way to do it.

              Yes it is part and parcel of that reform, your authoritarian bitching notwithstanding.

            2. It's virtually impossible to immigrate legally. And guess what, if we did your "reform" let millions more in every year, it would still be virtually impossible to immigrate legally, because the gap between the number allowed and those who wish to immigrate will still be in the many hundreds of millions.

        2. Re: Tulpa,

          There already is a path to citizenship: immigrate legally.

          Only if you marry an American Citizen. Otherwise, good luck.

          1. Sorry OM, not true. I've personally aided several people immigrate and become citizens, all from SEAsia or Canada (!). It can be difficult, as my brother's mother-in-law who has been in the queue for years, will tell you. Best advice - come to college or grad school and get an H1 visa, then get a sponsor. It ain't cheap, however.

          2. You've never had to deal with INS (or whatever they are these days) have you?

            The shit my wife and I had to go through to get her permanent resident status was absolutely infuriating. We followed all the advice we got from the local INS office and all it allowed them to do was ding us for multiple waivers due to breaking various rules (by following said advice).

            It has been 20+ years since we went through that and I'm still bitter about the entire process.

            1. I had to deal with INS in the 90s, but with some legal assistance from my employer.

            2. Sounds like the IRS. Gee, also sounds like the NHTSA. I wonder if there's a pattern here.

  4. I'm not sure what to think of this. =/

  5. Next: What Disc Golf means to America's food deserts.

  6. Can we get John Stossel to ask if it's a fake debate?

  7. Question to cosmos, if we opened up the border, how many would come? My estimate: 1100 million over the first 10 year period after the border is opened.

    1. Yes, Merkin. A full 1.1 billion people would all ditch their lives and move in. Why don't you donate your brain to science, it's obvious you're not using it.

      1. Do you have any logical objection to his assertion?

        open borders is a Collectivist ideal. its more communist than anything, and certainly not libertarian.

        it refutes, as its basis, the idea groups of ppl can jointly (as contract: national pact) own land, and exercise any control over its disposal. this is totally alien to idea of property ownership.

        how did this idea get tangled up with libertarians? its an erosion of the most basic concept of 'own'.

        1. how did this idea get tangled up with libertarians?

          Easy. Libertarians are anti-government, and only governments can block prospective immigrants from crossing the border. Therefore, if one hates government, one must hate government immigration policies that obstruct the free movement of every Tom, Pavel and Jose.

        2. Yeah, nothing more collectivist than individuals deciding for themselves where to live and with whom to associate.

          Nothing more individualistic than a 51% of a group getting together and deciding who can associate with the other 49%.

          Up is down! Black is white! Freedom is slavery!

          1. If I belong to a club, can't we make the rules as to admittance? Is citizenship any different?

            1. Who said anything about citizenship?

            2. Absolutely. Your private club should also have the ability to admit foreigners BTW.

              Of course a country is not analogous to a group of individuals voluntarily associating with each other. I'm sure you can see the differences.

              1. "a country is not analogous to a group of individuals voluntarily associating with each other. "

                Oh, are we East Germany or NoKo? Just because we have complex rules and own land, what features of association make it different from a club? Country clubs own land and limit access, collect dues, provide services, and act according to a charter.

                1. One is voluntary, the other is not.

                  Private property rights are also not the same as 'public property rights'.

                2. There's also the question of individual rights to free association, something the Constitution is supposed to protect.

                  In a private club the majority rules, not so (or at least shouldn't be) in the case of the state.

  8. I think that is a very good diea man.

  9. So proud of Mexico, they want to get the fuck out ASAP and hate that shithole! WOOO!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.