Mexico Shows Its True Colors...Sarge will love this.

[tex]

January 21, 2004

Mexico Shows Its True Colors

. . . and They Aren’t Red, White, and Blue

by James R. Edwards, Jr.

Mexican foreign secretary Ernesto Derbez thinks the American view of hemispheric security is outdated. The Associated Press has reported on a recent Derbez speech, heading into a Mexico City meeting on regional security, in which he said, “The U.S. idea of ‘one for all and all for one’ was an outdated, World War II concept.”

Mexico’s interior secretary, Santiago Creel, recently told the Copley News Service that Mexico will never police its side of the border with the United States. The implication is clear: Illegal immigrants have a green light to sneak north, as far as the Mexican government is concerned.

Mexico’s foreign policy and diplomacy belie its claims of friendship with the United States. In the Iraq war, our southern neighbor effectively sided with Saddam.

And the Iraqi regime was thankful. The Mexican newspaper Reforma reported March 19 that Sufian Elías K. Al-Hadithi, Iraq’s charge d’affaires in Mexico, conveyed Saddam Hussein’s gratitude for Mexico’s opposition to America’s war in Iraq.

Al-Hadithi voiced approval not only of the Mexican government’s position, but also of Mexican citizens’ burning of the American flag. Polls showed that 80 percent of Mexicans opposed the war with Iraq—mirroring American opinion in reverse.

In the United Nations, Mexico joined France and Russia in opposing the American position against the Iraqi regime. The United States sought United Nations (UN) approval of meaningful arms inspections and enforcement in Iraq.

Mexico employs “Gulliver” diplomacy toward the United States, according to its former foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda. Last November, as the UN Security Council wrestled with how to deal with Iraq’s floutings, Bloomberg reported how Castaneda “said smaller countries on the United Nation’s [sic] Security Council should tie up the U.S. to bring it in line with their views on issues such as Iraqi arms inspections.”

“I like very much the metaphor of Gulliver, of ensnarling the giant,” Castaneda was quoted. “Tying it up, with nails, with thread, with 20,000 nets that bog it down; these nets being norms, principles, resolutions, agreements, and bilateral, regional, and international covenants.”

President Vicente Fox’s man sounded more like an enemy than a friend or ally.

Castaneda has since resigned. But he wasn’t an outlier in the Fox administration. His sobering remarks against America apparently reflect the Fox government’s position.

For example, Mexico has maintained diplomatic relations with Castro’s Communist Cuba. Mexican President Fox was the first head of his state in eight years to visit Cuba. Fox has called Mexico’s relationship with Cuba “deep and solid.”

This should raise questions about Mexico’s political principles and alarm about the company it’s willing to keep. Flirting with Castro doesn’t indicate a nation dedicated to democracy, liberty, and free enterprise.

Why not? Because Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. Fidel Castro—mischaracterized by some as a commie geezer—has developed a biological-chemical weapons program. He remains committed to insurgency, helping terrorist groups such as the Irish Republican Army, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and fundamentalist Islamists.

Castro’s Forum of Sao Paulo advances his strategy of selling the old Communist snake oil in new packaging. The Hudson Institute’s Constantine Menges has exposed this strategy as “helping radical political leaders friendly to him take control of their countries by winning national elections in which they present themselves as ‘populists,’ opposed to corruption, while concealing their ultimate purposes.” Thus far, it has succeeded in Venezuela, Brazil, and Ecuador.

The Forum convenes Communist parties, terrorist groups, and government people from Latin America, Europe, and such nations as Saddam’s Iraq, North Korea, and China.

Nor is Mexico’s commitment to free enterprise much greater than its low commitment to liberty and democracy. In the House International Relations Committee this spring, a Democratic amendment to urge amnesty talks between the United States and Mexico attracted an amendment calling for private U.S. investment in Mexico’s state-owned oil company.

Mexico erupted. Officials from Fox on down dismissed the possibility of private investment in Pemex, especially not American investment. They renewed their commitment to their constitution’s provision requiring socialized oil production. The press inveighed against America’s market orientation, as well. The newspaper Excelsior, for example, called the suggestion “arrogance.”

In addition, while Fox claims to be good personal buddies with President Bush, Fox chose September 11, 2002, to pull out of the 1947 Rio Treaty. The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, signed by member states of the Organization of American States, pledges each country in the Americas to defend against an attack on any signatory nation. Perhaps it is only coincidence that September 11 was the anniversary of brutal terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Furthermore, Fox has called for a global tax. Developed nations such as the United States would end up paying the tax, while poor countries such as Mexico would receive the redistributed wealth.

Mexico never ceases to push for what it wants from the United States, regardless of its unfaithful “friendship.” It agitates for a “guest worker” program, in fact an amnesty for illegals already here and those yet to arrive. Mexico aggressively promotes U.S. acceptance of the security-risk “matricula consular” ID card that only illegal aliens need. It lobbies for in-state tuition at U.S. colleges, issuance of U.S. driver’s licenses, and U.S. Social Security benefits for illegal aliens.

Meanwhile, Mexico promotes dual loyalty. It encourages Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born offspring to hold dual nationality, undermining patriotic assimilation.

Scarier still is the fact that Creel will likely succeed Fox as the “conservative” National Action Party’s (PAN) presidential candidate. And PAN is supposed to be preferable to the liberal Institutional Revolutionary Party.

George Washington warned, “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.” Those foes are as real today as they were then, and they do not fade away when we let good intentions lull us to sleep.

This article appears in the Fall 2003 issue of American Outlook.

James Edwards, Jr. is an Adjunct Fellow with Hudson Institute.

http://www.americanoutlook.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3195&pubtype=DailyArticles

[Sarge]

Not surprising at all. A corrupt sh!thole.

Buy what's left of the Berlin Wall, string up constantina wire on top and shoot a couple of illegals. That'll slow the flow.

[Renegade7]

wow. i hope this doesn't mean what i think it means. I hope this clear this up, cuz this is truely ugly.

---------------------------------

0-16, 16-0, skins fan till i die!!!

[tex]

Originally posted by Sarge

Not surprising at all. A corrupt sh!thole.

Buy what's left of the Berlin Wall, string up constantina wire on top and shoot a couple of illegals. That'll slow the flow.

Seems for every positive thing I see south of the border there are 10 negitives. The good may not outweigh the bad in this instance. Perhaps it is time to crackdown on the flow of illegals into our country.

[Sarge]

I said in another thread that I have a bud who got out of the military and now works for the Border Patrol in Arizona. He said the floodgates have already opened and that the flow of illegals has increased vastly. He said they are coming for "amnesty". Just phucking lovely.

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Sarge

I said in another thread that I have a bud who got out of the military and now works for the Border Patrol in Arizona. He said the floodgates have already opened and that the flow of illegals has increased vastly. He said they are coming for "amnesty". Just phucking lovely.

maybe they'll find a way to vote!

[tex]

It may become a hot button political issue in the upcoming presidential election. On one hand you have our leaders “protecting” us with the extremely intrusive Patriot Act while the other hand is giving the high sign to a flood from across the border that may bring with it those that mean to do us harm. Something just don’t smell right.

[Cskin]

Yes... they hurry into this country, under the fences and over the walls, with amnesty in their mind and with their mouths open and hands out. Why our goverment won't simply heed the wishes of the majority of Americans, which is to close the borders and inact a worker "guest" program which includes controls and monitoring procedures..... I'll never understand.

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by tex

It may become a hot button political issue in the upcoming presidential election. On one hand you have our leaders “protecting” us with the extremely intrusive Patriot Act while the other hand is giving the high sign to a flood from across the border that may bring with it those that mean to do us harm. Something just don’t smell right.

What sounds better?

We're stopping the terroritst!!!

or

We're stopping the illegal immigrants!!!

---

No one's talking about it cuz all anyone is thinking about is terrorist. Its said, but it believe that until it actually costs us somethin, people are just gonna keep jumpin the border like its no big deal. Who knows, the terrorist are probably already here. But that doesn't sound pretty, and i doubt Bush is gonna bring that up during a re-election year.

------------------------------------------

0-16, 16-0, skins fan till i die!!!

[Sarge]

I would have no problem if we did a few things.

First, build a wall, put the military on the border and hang out the "No Vacancy" sign. Period.

Second, give everyone here, legal or illegal, a chance to identify themselves. Anyone that has a job has to get the company that employs them vouch for them and give them some form of ID.

Kick everyone that is here illegally out. If they have a job and a company is willing to sponsor them back, great, help them back and pay all the expenses. If they have no job. let them apply for work, from the other side of the border. When you get cleared to come legally, welcome aboard

Make it mandatory that before you come back, you be able to speak English and use it while in public or doing business in America.

Again, if you don't like those terms, stay in your own sh!thole

[luckydevil]

As a libertarian, I support the notion of open borders in theory.

However, if the welfare state countinues to exist, open borders are unrealistic and dangerous. It undermines and threatens freedom.

People used to come to this country to seek out opportunity and liberty. Today a great deal of people are coming for our government services. Sigh.

Americans cannot afford to finance open borders and a welfare state.

[tex]

Originally posted by OtNaz24

What sounds better?

We're stopping the terroritst!!!

or

We're stopping the illegal immigrants!!!

---

No one's talking about it cuz all anyone is thinking about is terrorist. Its said, but it believe that until it actually costs us somethin, people are just gonna keep jumpin the border like its no big deal. Who knows, the terrorist are probably already here. But that doesn't sound pretty, and i doubt Bush is gonna bring that up during a re-election year.

------------------------------------------

0-16, 16-0, skins fan till i die!!!

It's all about the sound bites to be sure.

http://www.thesoundbitesociety.com/

[Cskin]

Yes... something about being placed on this earth and be forced to feed, clothe, and medicate anyone who can climb under a fence or swim across a river just really sits wrong with me.

Build a wall, place high tech monitoring equipment, and employ the national guard to protect. Give the illegals a timeframe to make themselves known, prove they are working and not sucking of the federal govt. nipple, and they can stay as long as they are monitored and made to re-register each year and be held in a database to be cross checked for felony crimes.

Otherwise... it's on to a big bus for a one way trip to Mexico.... .where just before they hit the border they pass under a banner that reads... "It's a priviledge to live and work in the US, a birth right for those born in the US.... a beam of light and hope for those willing to follow procedures and be held accountable for their actions".

[tex]

Originally posted by Sarge

I would have no problem if we did a few things.

First, build a wall, put the military on the border and hang out the "No Vacancy" sign. Period.

Second, give everyone here, legal or illegal, a chance to identify themselves. Anyone that has a job has to get the company that employs them vouch for them and give them some form of ID.

Kick everyone that is here illegally out. If they have a job and a company is willing to sponsor them back, great, help them back and pay all the expenses. If they have no job. let them apply for work, from the other side of the border. When you get cleared to come legally, welcome aboard

Make it mandatory that before you come back, you be able to speak English and use it while in public or doing business in America.

Again, if you don't like those terms, stay in your own sh!thole

Have seen some ruins down along the Rio Grande that are said to be over 6000 years old. They made me think "over 6000 years to make something of if and it's still a sh!thole."

[Sarge]

COMING TO AMERICA

Border Patrol: Did Bush send you here?

Surveying illegals to find out whether prompted by immigration plan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: January 23, 2004

5:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Border Patrol agents along the southern frontier are surveying illegals to find out if President Bush's controversial immigration reform plan announcement prompted them to come.

Agents have been instructed to ask one out of every five illegal aliens they catch if they were aware of Bush's proposed guest worker program and if it motivated them to come, the Tucson Citizen newspaper reported.

The daily said a citizen border watchdog group, Civil Homeland Defense, believes it already has seen an effect from the announcement.

The group caught 85 people entering the country illegally last weekend, said founder Chris Simcox.

"They were, like, 'What's the problem? President Bush said it was OK,'" he told the Tucson paper. "That's the attitude out there, and [border Patrol] agents are totally demoralized."

Civil Homeland Defense reports its capture of illegals to Border Patrol agents.

The Citizen reported an unnamed local officer of the Border Patrol complained the survey is a meaningless waste of time.

"It does burden agents down with paperwork, like they don't have enough already," he said, according to the paper. "And the survey itself is meaningless because you can't guarantee these people are going to tell you the truth."

Rob Daniels, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, said he was not aware of the survey being conducted locally but noted it is being done in Texas and parts of Louisiana.

It's probably too early to tell if the president's two-week-old announcement is having an effect on the border, he said.

But according to the Los Angeles Times, agents say there is anecdotal evidence a new wave of immigration has begun, as detainees have demanded "amnesty" upon their capture.

The Times, which conducted dozens of interviews with U.S. Border Patrol agents this week, found overwhelming opposition to the president's plan.

Many of the agents consider themselves supporters of the Bush administration but savaged the White House proposal as a grab for Latino votes and a favor to the business community, the paper said.

The agents said they are bracing for an onslaught of people trying to sneak into the country.

"We get rocks thrown at us. We get shot at. We get spit on," James Stack, a veteran patrolman near El Paso and an agents' union representative, told the Times.

"There have been many agents who have given their lives in the line of duty," he continued. "This seems to say that those deaths were for nothing, and that this administration is not truly concerned about immigration."

Since the federal government offered amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal aliens in 1986, the number has at least doubled. Agents expect a similar pattern this time.

"The increase in numbers is going to be phenomenal," Charlie Maxwell, a union leader and senior Border Patrol agent in Brownsville, Texas, told the Times.

In his State of the Union address this week, Bush emphasized he is against "amnesty."

Under a plan he will propose to Congress, illegal aliens working in the United States would be allowed to remain in the country for three years if their employers vouch for their jobs. During that period, the worker essentially would be given the rights of a worker with permanent-resident status, including Social Security benefits and the right to bring family members to the United States.

In addition, a "temporary worker program" would permit foreigners to come to the U.S. if they can prove they have secured a job.

But David A. Martin, a University of Virginia law professor and ex-general counsel for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, believes the impact of the plan will be similar to amnesty, the Times said.

It would be virtually impossible for the government to deport millions of people once their temporary worker visa expires, he and many analysts contend. Through a website, noamnesty.com, the National Border Patrol Council is calling the guest worker proposal a "slap in the face."

The site says Bush "has decided that cheap labor and votes outweigh obedience to laws."

[Ghost of]

lucky

you know you and I agree on a great many things.

I think I USED to agree with open borders, but I think that's an idea whose time can only come when the entire earth pretty much embraces a form of economics and society that is predominantly reliant on capitalism as its engine(though not its core, morality and culture have their place too)

Until then though, we must protect our culture and our system as much as we can. I do not believe that today immigration is like it used to be. Assimilation is NOT the order of the day, especially with the Mexicans because they are never cut off from new inflows from the home country.

Also, Chinese, even if illegal, do not intend on making any part of this nation China. Many Mexican immigrants do not believe this land is part of the US.

Another great number, unlike other ethnic illegals do not plan to find a way to stay here to become Americans. Their entire mindset is "Mexico First" and they send billions back and live off our largesse when they do no work(or even if they do) and destroy our environment on the way here, wreck property and then crowd up emergency rooms while Americans die waiting for care.

Sorry, I do not trust a group of people that throws trash on the American soccer team--- IN LOS ANGELES.

Instead of immigrants I call them invaders.