Sam, how big a role do American corporations play in maintaining the status quo in the Mexican government? I'm really asking if bribes from American interests are a big part of the equation.

Edit: I neglected to say thank you for this very informative set of posts. You have taught me a great deal about our next door neighbor.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Most or all of the changes you suggest seem reasonable and necessary. However, one thing I know about Mexico and the US is that migration of poor people to the US from Mexico increased substantially after the ratification of NAFTA. All of the problems you list were there before NAFTA, yet immigration was a lot less.

So how about reform or repeal of NAFTA at the top of the list of changes that should be considered?

My understanding of the problem of NAFTA that is causing most of the immigration is that the US subsidizes its farmers much more than Mexico. US food exported to Mexico is so much cheaper that small Mexican farmers cannot compete. They go bankrupt and come here.
That is the sort of change that reforming NAFTA must accommodate so that small Mexican farmers can continue to economically exist.

Some of the reforms that Quiñones suggests are good, although it is an odd hodgepodge of ideas. For example, allowing the reelection of legislators, which I also think is a much needed reform, isn’t going to get the economy booming. It’s a needed political reform, but it won’t do much for economic growth. Interestingly, in all his list of proposals he never mentioned any kind of redistributive proposal to help make Mexico a more equal country (and it bears repeating that Latin America isn’t the poorest place in the world, but it is the most unequal). It may help to discuss as well what the US should (or shouldn’t) do to help its northern neighbor progress. For starters would be not doing anything that would cause instability and disruption like, say, trying to close the border or making it harder to send remittances back home. A fundamental reform of our immigration laws is much needed. Increasing foreign aid and finding ways to alleviate the disruptive effects of NAFTA (without undoing all the ways in which NAFTA is beneficial to Mexico) wouldn’t be bad. Eliminating our ridiculous subsidies to agriculture would help. And if every time a center-left leader is close to being elected President we don’t throw a shit-fit, well, that might help also. Or how about the US Fed making some commitment to help insure the stability of the peso? And since we’re in the realm of fantasy anyways, maybe we could think about debt relief so that Mexico could pay for all the necessary reforms?

With regards to the rest of Quiñones’s posts this week, perhaps now is a time for some review.

1. Contrary to Quiñones’s claim that Mexico is fast becoming a country filled with empty houses, old people, cripples, etc. it remains a dynamic, complex, modern, urban, hugely unequal country brimming with young people in the prime of their life, many working, struggling to make ends meet, living life. The median age in Mexico is now 24, and of its 1.3 million people, about ½ of them are economically active, although a good proportion of its citizens are either unemployed or, more common, underemployed.

2. Mexico City is a vast, complex, and dynamic place. A lot of people resent its centralization of political and cultural power, and for good reason. But Mr. Quiñones’s original claims that people were “leaving” Mexico City made no sense, since clearly the city is growing. He later revised his comments to indicate that obviously people weren’t leaving the “physical place,” just leaving “culturally.” The latter statement made no more sense than the former.

3. Many Mexicans in search of a better life migrate to the United States. Unless lucky enough to have family legally living in the US and luckier still to be able to use that to gain legal entry for themselves, all the rest have no option but to enter illegally. This is the main way that Mexican immigrants are different from previous waves of migrants from Europe.

4. Mexican migration to the United States is remarkably similar to other immigrant waves. First, like other immigrants, Mexicans come to the United States in search of work. Second, like other immigrants, the recent arrivals tend to live in communities with others from their home country and continue speaking their native language. But like other immigrant groups, their sons/daughters and grandsons/granddaughters assimilate into American culture, while often retaining a sense of reverence and pride in their background (again, no different from, say, Italian-Americans or Irish-Americans). Third, as a proportion of the current US population—indeed, as a proportion of the current US labor market—Mexicans immigrants represent a small number of people. But their concentration in certain places and certain economic sectors is more pronounced. However, like previous immigrant groups—Italians, Jews, Irish—whose arrival was met with cries of exaggerated despair, so now do commentators like Quiñones now sound the alarm about vast quantities of Mexicans descending upon the US in numbers unlike we’ve ever seen before, leaving behind empty houses and empty landscapes in their home country. It’s all bunk, and a little less poetics and a little more historical data would be more illustrative.

5. Many recent arrivals to Mexico are hard, working, entrepreneurial people. They come here because there was not enough work for them in Mexico, no productive outlet for their energies. Their departure for Mexico doesn’t hurt Mexico; it is because Mexico is hurting that they have to come in the first place.

6. Mexicans who migrate to the US do not do so happily. It is a tough, sad, hard experience to have to leave your country in search of work. Many hope to return to Mexico at some point (and many will, although as border security gets tougher they are tending to stay for longer periods of time). It is a tragedy that they have to leave to look for work; it would be an even bigger tragedy (for them and for us) if they could not.

7. Many immigrants send money back home (remittances) that help the Mexican economy. Remittances helps many back home make ends meet, it creates demand for consumer goods, and it helps achieve monetary stability. Remittances are best compared not to “welfare” as Quiñones suggests, but to foreign aid payments that go directly to the people most in need of the money as opposed to being filtered through corrupt government agencies. And, contrary, to what Quiñones implies, remittances don’t create “dependency” that keep people from working. People are underemployed not by choice, but because there just isn’t enough work for them. Given the extent of poverty in Mexico, I can’t begin to understand Quiñoses’s suggestion that those who are lucky enough to receive some aid from abroad would benefit if it just suddenly stopped. But that’s what he’s suggested—that if only the millions of Mexicans currently in the US would just go back home and swell the number of job seekers and if only the estimated 23 million dollars a year that gets sent back to Mexico would cease, then the Mexican economy would start thriving. I can’t say it enough—it’s the most glaring case of confusing a cause and an effect I’ve ever encountered.

8. Every point I’ve raised has been met with exasperated howls from Mr. Quiñones to the effect that he’s “been there” and has “talked to people.” Presumably if you’ve traveled in Mexico and talked to people there is only one possible interpretation of reality that need not be tempered with any other type of evidence or insight.

The Cranky Historian

Cranky, thank you

Many immigrants send money back home (remittances) that help the Mexican economy. . . the estimated 23 million dollars a year

Actually, 23 billion and it's undoubtedlt even more, and to say that it "helps" the Mexican economy seems like an understatement.

news report (Mar 2007):
Mexico (with a total of $23bn), Brazil ($7bn) and Colombia ($4bn) receive most remittances, but the flows are especially beneficial for the poorer and more marginal countries of Central America and the Caribbean, where they account for more than 10 per cent of GDP in many cases.

Don Terry, head of the Multilateral Investment Fund, the IDB agency that monitors the flows, argues that as 8m-10m families “would be below the poverty line” without the remittances.

However, a clampdown by US migration officials on illegal immigrants could be contributing to a sharp slowdown in growth, Mr Terry claimed.

In Mexico, for example, remittances grew 25 per cent in the first quarter of 2006 but by only 5 per cent in the last three months of the year and by only 1 per cent in December. During that month immigration authorities conducted highly publicised raids on factories, such as meat-packing plants operated by Swift & Co, suspected of employing illegal immigrants.

Fearful of showing up at money transfer agencies or banks, immigrants could be choosing to send money back through family members and friends.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f94e4d5c-d32b-11db-829f-000b5df10621.html

news report (Oct 2003):
Remittances to Mexico Exceed Investment as Source of Income, The New York Times -- MEXICO CITY

Nearly one Mexican in five regularly gets money from relatives employed in the United States, making Mexico the largest repository of such remittances in the world, according to a poll sponsored by the Inter-American Development Bank.

The pollster, Sergio Bendixen, estimated that the payments help feed, house and educate at least a quarter of Mexico’s 100 million people.

The poll was part of a report on Monday by the bank, which said money sent home by all Mexican immigrants would soar to $14.5 billion this year [2003], exceeding tourism and direct foreign investment to become this country’s second most important source of income. Oil remains No. 1.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N52/long2_52.52w.html

ecotourism
WeGoEco.com

I’m not aware of that happening, though that doesn’t mean it doesn’t.

The real problem, from my vantage point, is that there are so many entrenched, insulated interests in Mexico – politicians, business oligarchs, union leaders. Most of them see change as an enemy; or at least change they can’t control as an enemy. Moreover, they have tremendous power and aren’t forced to be accountable to anyone.

This is certainly true in Congress. I dare say it’s true of many union leaders, too. Business is split. Some avidly work for change. Others simply figure they’ll lose a lot if real competition, real openness comes to the political process and the economy and thus stand in its way.

Meanwhile, the folks who might really lobby for change in one way or another (formally or informally in  a myriad of ways) have left for the United States. These are the folks that might really transform the country with their labor. Look how they do here: normally really well over time. Mexico is losing that at the border with the US.

I like Mexico. I like Mexicans. I like their food, their music, their language. I've never met a haughty Mexican.

I think we should make Mexico the 51st state and start a moratorium on all other immigrant classes, including Texans, with their terrible music, dissonant language, their third world cuisine, and the phony morals they wave while their underage daughters run amok, drunk and doped up in a bar. Only the Chinese are more driven to empire.

Some of that was meant to be kinda funny. Back to you, grownups.

It depends on your definition of “helps.”

Remittances most definitely keep large chunks of Mexico afloat. No doubt about that.

But in return, Mexico loses its hardest-working, most dynamic people, and $23 billion doesn’t begin to compensate the country for that.

Those folks send a lot of money home to their families, which does help. They also spend a lot on houses that will never be occupied and public infrastructure in towns that almost no one lives in.

What’s more, remittances hike the cost of living in many areas, so that people and companies that might invest in job-creating businesses in those areas won’t do it. They won’t do it because they know the people who remain in those areas are likely to demand wages far above the prevailing wage because they’re either receiving money from the states or they’ve been north and know what it’s like to work for $15 an hour instead of a day.

Remittances, along with the unchanged status quo of Mexico, push people to leave in ever-larger numbers.

Also, I believe remittances are one reason why Mexico's legislators haven't done more to change the fundamental conditions that push people to leave. Again, as i said earlier, they see it as the departure of millions of poor people who in turn send back billions of dollars. So where's the harm? Why should they be in a hurry to change? Answer is: they're not.

So the question of how much remittances “help” Mexico is a big and complicated one.

What is certain, from the experience of Zacatecas, Michoacan, Jalisco and other states, is that remittances do NOT lead to economic development in the long-term. Instead, they lead to the emptying-out phenomenon I've described in earlier blogs.

 Sam Quinones

Texans, with their terrible music, dissonant language, their third world cuisine, and the phony morals they wave while their underage daughters run amok, drunk and doped up in a bar.

It's due to all those oil patch remittances. Messes 'em up real good. All horses and no cattle. Um--which bar would that be?

Excellent blog.

Let me throw my speculations in. Mexico is an undeveloped nation which is undergoing the normal process of Industrialization. Much of Mexico is arid, and there are no major rivers for internal shipping. There are also no world-class sea ports. These are geographic limitations.

The aridity means that the only efficient agriculture is modern factory-style agriculture producing for market, so the subsistence farms that supported the population simply cannot be upgraded. The result is much like the enclosure movement in England in which the traditional yoeman farmers were dispossessed and their land converted to the cash crop of sheep.

The efficiency and subsidies of American agriculture mean that U.S. farm products can often be sold cheaper than locally produced products. Not good if you want agricultural workers to stay in Mexico.

Combine this with the growing population normal in underdeveloped nations and the only place the excess population can go is to the slums of Mexico City or Monterrey. If a young Mexican male wants to support a wife and family, he has to go where the jobs are - and because of geography and the inability to fund an effective total public education system, those jobs are not being produced in Mexico. Those jobs ARE being created in the U.S., and the native population of the U.S. is not increasing. Workers will go to the jobs in a money society.

In England the Industrial Revolution was creating factory jobs while the farmers were being evicted from their farms. The same thing is happening in North America, but unfortunately there is a national border between the labor supply and the jobs.

I seriously doubt that the difference between the Spanish and English languages is any more of a barrier than was the difference between English, Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Irish or the many dialects that used to exist on the British Isles. Culture and language adapt to the possibilities created by Economics. Ask my German-speaking ancestors.

The problems of the class conscious natives of Mexico City is another problem, again one exacerbated by the artificial barrier of the national border and the frightened American Nativists and Racists. Your blog deals with that rather well.

Here in Texas this year for the first time half of all first graders entering school come from Spanish-speaking families. 92% of those are born American citizens, not immigrants. The "Fence" is a piece of idiocy that will not last. Unlike the Maginot line and the Great Wall of China, the "Fence" doesn't even attempt to protect from an enemy, and it runs counter to the demands of the economies on both sides of the border. It's a total waste of money that would be better spent on improving education and health care on both sides of the border.

The long-term future of the Mexican American relationship is rather obvious. The only question is how the two economies and cultures will go about integrating. But as Keynes said "In the long term, we are all dead." Getting there is going to be interesting.

Rick, I think you need to update a bit. There are over 19k miles of navigable waterways in Mexico (rivers and canals), but none that I know will support large ships.

Puerto Lazaro Cardenas in Michoacan is a deep water port that can handle large ships (containers, liquids, dry cargo) - 160k TEU in 05 - and is being expanded to handle 2.2 million TEU. Manzanillo, Colima, also sports a deep water port, as does Veracruz, Altimira and Ensenada. And in the oven, the mega-port Punta Colonet, 150 miles south of Tijuana, which will be as large as the port of Los Angeles and Long Beach combined. Ensenada will aslo be upgraded, and with both port project railroad infrastructure is included, with rail to to the San Diego and Calexico ports of entry.

Climate and agriculture. Half of Mexico lies south of the Tropic of Capricorn, and is not classified as "arid" (even though many areas in the tropics have substantial dry seasons). But arid lands in and of themselves don't preclude agricultural productivity - the issue is water for irrigation. Mexico has decent water resources in arid areas, and thus good agricultural productivity. In the tropics, fruit, coco, sugar cane etc. are expanding. Even so, agriculture accounts for around 5% of Mexico's gdp. In the US, I believe the comparable rate is 7.7%

Subsistence farming in Mexico is still wide-spread, especially in the tropical south. In the 1990s the Ejido program was modified to all Ejido holders to sell their ejidos, so there is a trend afoot to build large farms that will employ modern mechanized teniques to grow supercrops. Because the old ejidos were not held with fee simple titles, the small farmer couldn't use them as collateral for farm development loans, and the program largely failed due to under-capitalization. In contrast, Mexican agribusiness was underwritten by the US, and credit was available from US banks for development. But the products grown became too expensive for poor Mexicans, and were either marketed as international commodities or purchased by the Mexican government and distributed to the population through various public assistance schemes. I was in Mexico City in 1980 and saw the signs of the Mexican war on the tortilla (Mwot) - a billboard campaign - psyops - encouraging Mexicans to eat Wonder Bread instead of Maiz.

Mexico's major indursties are food/beverages, tobacco, chemicals, iron/steel, petroleum, mining, textiles, clothing, automobiles, tourism and consummer durables (the maquiladoras). I believe that agriculture will rise, since the PAN party is a spawn of Mexican agribusiness and cattle barons, but it may never rise to the level of "major" in Mexico. But look, you can buy mangos and papaya in a grocery store in Lincoln, Nebraska today - and winter vegetables from Mexico are available in the US. It wasn't that long ago that the price of a tomato would quadruple in price in February in California.

BTW, I just now looked up that info about deep water ports in Mexico, after I read your comments. I'm still digesting the impact on Baja California Norte that will have. One thing is that I'll lose sleep over it. I'm living within earshot of the train tracks that transport good from Mexicali/Calexico to points north - it's not bad if the wind is blowing right. But with the Cononet and Ensenada development projects, train traffic will increase dramatically. All those Chinese lead toys...

Neoboho

This is a really excellent analysis. I agree with everything the author says except:

"Until Mexico starts down the road to profound reform, nothing the U.S. does regarding its own immigration laws will slow the flow of its people north."

A strong fence can reduce the flow of illegal immigrants to an irreducable trickle. In populated areas a physical fence may be needed, but in thinly populated and unpopulated areas a virtual fence using things like motion detectors and drone planes with infra red cameras should be more cost effective.

Stopping the ability of Mexico to export its poor will force it to deal with its serious domestic problems. In addition, seriously impeding the flow of narcotics through Mexico will make it easier for the Mexican government to liberate the country from the plague and corruption of the drug cartels.

"Good fences make good neighbors."

"In short, currently the job growth in the U.S. is such that more workers are needed."

The United States needs additional unskilled and semi-skilled workers only if the national objective of the United States is to keep the wages of such workers low. This is, of course, the objective of Bush and his corporate cronies, which is why until the right wing base of the Republican party turned on the heat, the Bush administration did virtually nothing to try to end the illegal immigration.

Without such an influx of illegal aliens total growth of U.S. GDP will be lower, but growth in U.S. GDP PER CAPITA will be higher as the wages of the unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the U.S. (including legal immigrants) will cease being depressed by illegal immigration.

An economy that depends so heavily on remittances, and, let's get real, on laudered drug money being repatriated, is a sick, disfunctional economy. It is like a drug addict being dependent on his drug. It is time that access to the drug were removed to force the addict to free himself of the addition.

Recently there have been complaints about an increase in the price of tortillas. If Mexico did not get the subsidized U.S. corn, which holds the price of corn down in Mexico, Mexican corn farmers would do better, but the price of tortillas would be even higher. There is no easy answer to this dilemma here.

Location moved.

"Let's say there was a magical way to keep people from migrating, to seal the border completely."

A strong enough fence can reduce the influx of illegal immigrants to a trickle. In populated areas a physical fence may well be needed, but in thinly populated and unpopulated areas a virtual fence using motion detectors and drone planes with infra red cameras backed up by a large enough force of border guards would do the job.

There is one additional important point that is being ignored. Much of Mexico's poverty is caused by its high birth rate. If the birth rate in Mexico were no higher than in the United States, income per capita would be a lot higher. Much of the Mexican peasents' poverty is self inflicted by having more children than they can support. An investment in encouraging birth control would probably do more to reduce poverty in Mexico than anything else.

One of the main signs of Mexico's economic underdevelopment is that it still does not have an extensive net of interstate expressways. Mexico already had a few in the 1960s, but the increase since then has been limited. For example, one still cannot drive from the U.S. to Mexico City by expressway. The construction of the Interstate highway system in the United States decades ago was a major boost to its economic development.

Are you aware of the differences in income and wealth between Mississippi and California? But, that union works, and federal laws have helped in Mississippi, even though much remains to be done. Just as states must comply with the US Constitution, the nations in the "North American Union" would have to comply with the constitution governing that union.

American workers are going to suffer as we get closer to Mexico in any case. Anything that brings Mexican incomes up will act as a drag on American wages. It is highly likely that we are past the peak for American workers economic well being already.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I was being sarcastic. I was trying to point out that by leaving immigrants don't create economic problems in their home countries; they leave because there are economic problems in their home countries. The Irish "transformed" (to use Quinones's favorite word) the US with their labor. By Quinones's logic they should have just stayed in Ireland and "transformed" there. It makes no sense. It is illogical. It confuses a cause with an effect.

The Cranky Historian

<>Cap'n, Mexico's birth rate is around 20 per 1000, but its population growth rate is slightly higher than the US - 1.15 and 0.894 respectively.  (CIA World Factbook).

Mexico has a high infant mortality rate, which probably accounts for the differences in birth rate and population growth rate.  The trend in Mexico for population growth is downward.

On its face it would seem that immigration from Mexico to the US would close the gap between the pop.growth numbers, but you would really have to determine who and what is being counted by what mechanisms to substantiate it.   

Neoboho

The high infant mortality rate is very regrettable. But if the parents had fewer children they could provide better for the ones they do have. An active promotion of birth control would have very beneficial effects.

"Anything that brings Mexican incomes up will act as a drag on American wages."

That statement is not correct because of the term "Anything." There are many things that could increase Mexican incomes without such an effect.

However this is true that a free flow of labor from Mexico to the U.S. would increase the wages of Mexican workers and decrease the wages of U.S. workers, except in highly skilled areas.

American workers are becoming increasingly aware of this and, not surprisingly, are putting increasing pressure on the U.S. government to stop such a flow.

If the entrepreneurs had stayed in Mexico and created jobs there, there would have been less unemployment and underemployment.

"So why not look at immigration as one of the few forms of social mobility that exist in Mexico?"

Because a massive inflow of illegal immigrants is unacceptable to most of the people of the United States and there is increasing political pressure on the U.S. government to put a stop to it.

Mexico needs to start to help itself instead of counting on a policy of exporting its poor to avoid making the reforms to put the Mexican economy on a sound basis.

What must Mexico do?

I know I am posting this late but this thought occurred to me.

What Mexico must do is hang on for dear life, because changes are coming.

What Sam Quinones and others seem to be ignoring is history. (maybe that is what is making the Cranky Historian so cranky) One migration that was mentioned was the migration of southern blacks to the north. We tend to forget that a generation later many of these migrants returned to help the southern brothers with their fight for civil rights. Ex. CORE was formed in Chicago in 1942.
Another migration mentioned was that of Europeans in the late 19th and 20th centuries. We tend to think of these immigrants coming here for “freedom and opportunity “ and staying here. But historians have found that was just not the case. There was a lot of movement back and forth with many immigrants coming for jobs and then returning back home with a nest egg. If my memory serves me as many as 25% to 30 % of the Italian immigrants returned home and more would have returned if WWI hadn’t made ocean travel hazardous.

So from history, we know migrants will return home and demand change . Not only that, they will bring with them their many connections and friends to back them up. This is already happening , google “ Tomato King”.

We also know that when people emigrate for work a great many will return.

So if the Mexican migration is like the Italian one we can expect 2-3 million returnees, with all of their new ideas and connections, causing trouble for the Mexican establishment. Imagine 2 million Tomato Kings, preaching education and opportunity.

Jack

But I also obtained the figure .894 from the same source you cite, and remarkably, it is the same figure. How can you say it is incorrect? The 1.15 figure refers to Mexico's population growth ( the CIA gives 1.153). Nice try, though.

You seem to be caught up in a 30 year old perception of Mexican families. Had that trend continued, it is estimated that Mexico's population would be 170 million today. Instead it is 100 million. Why? Because Mexican families have become smaller. The average fertility rate is now 2.3 kids - in the U.S. it's 2.09 kids. In Niger it's 7.37 kids, Israel 2.38.

So your thesis about Mexican family size is unfounded. But why rate my rejoinder "1 - unproductive"?

Neoboho

Interesting piece I just ran across from Reason Magazine on "Arts & Letters Daily":

The Secrets of Intangible Wealth For once the World Bank says something smart about the real causes of prosperity

Ronald Bailey | October 5, 2007

A Mexican migrant to the U.S. is five times more productive than one who stays home. Why is that?

The answer is not the obvious one: This country has more machinery or tools or natural resources. Instead, according to some remarkable but largely ignored research—by the World Bank, of all places—it is because the average American has access to over $418,000 in intangible wealth, while the stay-at-home Mexican's intangible wealth is just $34,000.

But what is intangible wealth, and how on earth is it measured? And what does it mean for the world's people—poor and rich? That's where the story gets even more interesting.

Two years ago the World Bank's environmental economics department set out to assess the relative contributions of various kinds of capital to economic development. Its study, "Where is the Wealth of Nations?: Measuring Capital for the 21st Century,"....

Sorry. I misinterpreted your data. I thought that you had stated -1.15 for the United States. I should have looked at this more closely. My bad.

"Revenues of US based Hispanic companies are growing on average by 20% a year."

The fact that these companies are creating jobs in the United States, rather than in Mexico, is Mexico's loss. The fact that ambitious Mexicans see coming to the United States instead of developing businesses in Mexico is one of the things that is holding Mexican economic development back.

Unlike Mexian illegal immigrant workers, who have damaged the U.S. econoomy by putting downward pressure on wages of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, Mexican businessmen who have set up businesses in the U.S. have undoubtedly benefitted the U.S. economy. But I would conjecture that most of them are legal immigrants. (Does anyone have any data on this. I admit I could be wrong about this.)

"The vast majority of "illegal" immigrants come to the US on tourist visas and then extend their stay."

I have on many occasions pointed out the need to close the borderS, and have pointed out that this is also a problem that needs to be addressed. But I would like to see your proof that the people who enter in this way are the vast majority.

What is needed here is that a detailed record be made of the people who enter with visas and then, when people with visas leave the country, this also be recorded so that the government, by computer matching of the lists, can determine which ones have overstayed their visas. An extensive effort needs to be made to locate them and deport them.

Actually, I do not understand why illegal Mexican immigrants risk their lives crossing hot, waterless desserts. It would seem to me that instead they could get visas to enter legaly under such pretexts as wanting to visit their relatives or to visit Disneyland or the Grand Canyon and then not leave.