Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Mexican immigration hypocrisy
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, December 22, 2005

Remember this lecture from Mexican President Vicente Fox about a week or so ago when speaking about US plans to better control the southern border and stop illegal immigration?
"It's a very bad sign, which does not speak well of a country that is proud of being democratic, proud of being a country of immigrants," Fox said in a speech to relatives of Mexican migrants.
[...]
"The vast majority of the population of the United States, when we look at their roots, are immigrants who have arrived from all over the world and who have constructed that great nation. That's why they can't deny who they are," Fox said.
[...]
Last week, Fox described the proposal to put up security fences with lighting and cameras on the border as disgraceful, and Mexican officials have likened it to the construction of the Berlin Wall.

"Walls belong in the last century. They were knocked down by people in the search of liberty and democracy," Fox said on Sunday.
Of course Fox's analogy fails when one with even a brief acquaintence with history realizes that the Berlin wall was constructed to keep people in, not out.

Regardless of how one feels specifically about Fox's remarks, you can't help but feel that Fox is a champion of immigration.

Well, unless it is to Mexico:
Mexico's federal Human Rights Commission acknowledged yesterday that the country mistreats many immigrants – mainly Central Americans – and uses some of the same methods on them that it opposes in the United States.
Always nice to be lectured by hypocrites, isn't it?
"(Mexico's) population law does include prison terms for illegally entering the country . . . and this is something that has been the subject of constant complaints," said Mauricio Farah, a national inspector for the rights commission.

Article 123 of Mexico's population law states that "foreigners illegally entering the country will be subject to punishment of up to two years in prison" and fines of up to $28,220. Such prison sentences are rarely imposed in practice.

The commission presented a report that found overcrowding, poor treatment and generally bad conditions at many of the country's 51 immigration detention centers and 68 other holding facilities. The detention areas hold mainly Central American immigrants before they are deported back to their home countries. The facilities often lack working restrooms, blankets, sleeping mats, adequate food and medical care.
Ah, but even with these revelations, it's still a problem if the US does protect its borders:
While acknowledging the mistreatment, José Luis Soberanes, president of the rights commission, said the U.S. proposal to build 700 miles of additional fences or walls along the U.S.-Mexican border is "absurd."
Politician, heal thyself.

UPDATE [Jon Henke] This line in particular strikes me: "Fox described the proposal to put up security fences with lighting and cameras on the border as disgraceful".

Funny, I'd think Fox might be a bit more abashed about being the source of that border problem. Seems to me that being the leader of a country whose citizenry is risking life and limb to get the hell out by the millions...is a bit more disgraceful.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
All of our National Guard forces are now in Iraq.
Not quite true, Book, there are 200,000-plus Reserve and National Guard on Active duty, but that still leaves another 500,000 available for state and Federal use.

So to sum, because of Iraq Katrina was a problem and now because of Iraq the border is undefended. The story just keeps on giving doesn’t it, Book?

Further, why do you want the MILITARY guarding the border? Isn’t that a POLICE function? And if they’re on the border then when we deploy them somewhere the whine will be that because they were on the border they were untrained to deal with their deployment mission(s) and again it’s "Bush’s fault.", right?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It’s only absurd if your goal is continued ease of illegal access to the US.
Why do you want the MILITARY guarding the border? Isn’t that a POLICE function?
A reasonable question, but... because protection of the borders is a federal function, not a state function.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Further, why do you want the MILITARY guarding the border? Isn’t that a POLICE function?

NM Gov. Richardson declared a "state of emergency" for a reason.

This is not a "border problem."

This is an INVASION.
 
Written By: Nicholas G. Moses
URL: http://
... because protection of the borders is a federal function, not a state function.


Yes, and the Federal Government has a number of POLICE organizations specifically tasked to this mission. I don’t see the need to task the Military with it. IF needs be tansfer resources from DoD to Department of Justice, DHS in order to upgrade border "Defense."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So, you’re suggesting a massive increase of federal police functions.
Yeah, that’s gonna go over big.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Further, why do you want the MILITARY guarding the border?

The United States National Guard is not normally an active component of the US military, and it would not be unreasonable to have this or the state militias actually guarding us. If they weren’t of course performing the function of the regular Army right now. Or enforcing UN resolutions.

Putting aside all questions of support for the actions of the current administration overseas, the USNG really shouldn’t be used in the way they have been. That wasn’t their purpose. But guarding our border from invasion is less of a stretch in my opinion. Less of a stretch than asking a series of local police departments to deal with the issue, anyway.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
...the USNG really shouldn’t be used in the way they have been. That wasn’t their purpose.


Yes and No. You are correct in that the Guard belongs to a state until "Federalized", HOWEVER, no state could afford the current Guard structure, UNLESS there was the underlying Federal Mission.

There are hundreds of thousands of Guard personnel, and the bulk of their pay and their equipment is PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and states could not afford nearly the level of Guard/militia presence they have, curtsey of the Federal Government. The catch is, since the Fed’s make the CURRENT Guard possible, the Guard conforms to Federal mission requirements, Infantry, Armour, Artillery, etc. etc.

The states COULD, I guess, change this relationship, but it would be very expensive. Imagine a California National Guard/militia that provided "Basic Training" and equipment for a purely California mission. It could be done, but in practice states tend to let someone else do the work and they satifice with the force structure that is set, in part in Washington D.C.-actually a force structure set pretty much in D.C., even the Guard lobbies for Federal missions in D.C. via the Guard Association.

So the idea of the National Guard providing extended border security is not really an option for most states, they simply don’t want to absorb the cost. The current mission of the Guard IS the "purpose" of the Guard, today. You could change it, but you would be talking about the state’s picking up the tab.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So, you’re suggesting a massive increase of federal police functions.
Yeah, that’s gonna go over big.
I AM suggesting, if you want the Federal government involved in Border Security, one of its missions, THEN rather than the 1/67th Armour Battalion or the 1/7th Marines providing border patrols, we transfer that money into the Border Patrol and Customs Service... I really don’t see the difference, in level of public scrutiny and I do see a more effective provision of border security, by those units TRAINED and DESIGNED to provide that function over units designed, primarily, to kill people and break things.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
True. Yet, if the point by Nick Moses is correct... that what we’re really dealing with is an invasion... that would seem to place this sqaurely on the shoulders of the military.

And I submit that the reason we’re hemming and hawing about it is, that we’ve not had such an invasion for nigh on 200 years, withn one exception I can think of at the moment; That being, Pancho Villa , which resulted in military action, under the command of General Pershing, as I recall...(And by the way, involved a young Lt Patton killed General Cardenas, who was the head of Villa’s bodygurad contingent, if I remember rightly.)

With all that time passed, perhaps we’ve forgotten the threat an invasion poses?



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
True. Yet, if the point by Nick Moses is correct... that what we’re really dealing with is an invasion...
And yet it ISN’T, at least in the form most think of invasions. This is a movement of individuals from one place to another, for the economic social betterment of themselves and their families. It is not a purposive group movement designed to conquer and hold a land for group purposes.

It is INDIVIDUALS crossing a border, for a number of reasons, which we could debate, freedom, economic opportunity, welfare benefits, whatever you care to believe. This is NOT an invasion. And since it is NOT an invasion, I dispute the value that the military will have in stemming it. It’s not like the military is going to be able to use its firepower to stem this invasion.

If it’s "Boots on the ground" you want, disband some the military’s boots and place the feet in "cop shoes". Police, Federal, state, and local are the bettor reolvers of this crisis, not invasion, than placing the Guard, Reserve and Active forces on the border.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
And yet it ISN’T, at least in the form most think of invasions. This is a movement of individuals from one place to another, for the economic social betterment of themselves and their families. It is not a purposive group movement designed to conquer and hold a land for group purposes.
I’m willing to bet that when the first settlers came into this country, on a quest for the economic social betterment of themselves and their families, that the natives were a bit concerned about the invasion. Perhaps that’s why so many of them went to war with the white man?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Okay, I’m trolling....

But one question - His quote has wonderful implications.

"Walls belong in the last century. They were knocked down by people in the search of liberty and democracy," Fox said on Sunday.

And so....Mexicans are coming to the US seeking.....what was that? Liberty?
Democracy? So Vincente admits they don’t have as much liberty in Mexico
I gather, and that they’re not living in a Democracy? And that’s why they’re
coming here?

(Well, that an a little freedom from really low level government
corruption, we like to keep ours at a high level and in Washington where we can keep an occasional eye on it...and actual wages, probably low, but better than in Mexico."

Gee.....
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Hi,

Mexican immigrants are economic immigrants, they dont care about freedom or democracy they care about feeding their families back home. (The vast mayority). The problem is the wages in Mexico are so low compared to the US wages. If the US wants to build a wall is an internal decision, its your country you do what you want with it.

But lets see the other side American businessmen benefit from the illegal workforce, they abuse them, they mistreat they and they underpay them. The american economy benefits from them. Agricultural goods would be far more expensive. Also the goods from the food industry would be more expensive.

And her comes one more question the internal security issue. The mexican border (and the canadian as well) is so long that is difficult to keep track of who is in or who is out. The US face a big problem here and the day something happens in Houston or Dallas or LA it will be because somebody sneaked-in from Mexico. I hope that never happens.

The solution probably a treaty to create a controlled flow of workers.
 
Written By: Juan
URL: http://
They are economic migrants. There are 10 million of them. A market economy would have allowed in an additional 10 million legal immigrants and you wouldn’t have had an illegal immigration problem. You would have 10 million additional Americans, loyal to your contry and paying taxes.

But all America gained was their labor and not their loyalty, only to work until they can’t and then send them back. So they remian loyal to Mexico and as Mexicans they influence Mexican politics quite a bit.

You can seriously inhibit growth of your economy by restricting immigration and kicking out illegals - distorting the market. Or you can get 10 million immigrants legal and wear the political cost of climbing down. Or you can carry on with the muddle you have.

 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
If they are purely economic immigrants, why should they be loyal to the US rather than the country of their birth?


" A market economy would have allowed in an additional 10 million legal immigrants and you wouldn’t have had an illegal immigration problem. "

And of course if we legalize crime we won’t have a crime problem. And we can redefine poverty and solve that problem too.

"You can seriously inhibit growth of your economy by restricting immigration"

Since most illegal immigration is by poorly educated and unskilled labor, I doubt that economic growth will be seriously inhibited. What will be inhibited is the ability of middle-class homeowners to landscape their McMansions and hire cheap maids and nannys. And don’t forget that a lot of the dollars earned by these immigrants are sent back to their country of origin, removing them from our economy.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
What are the chances of actually stopping illegal immegration? The human will for a better life has kept people at moving across borders since the days Abram left Ur 5,000 years ago! The problem is that Mexico, despite Mr. Fox’s efforts, is not able to bring itself up to the social and economic standards of the United States. It is a failing nation.

Because of this, the US needs to re-imagine its relationship with Mexico. I propose that instead of walling off the border or coming up with more security or some other highly regulated solution, we do something completely different:

Buy Mexico.

For more information, read my blog: http://randelaw.blogspot.com
 
Written By: RandyL
URL: http://randelaw.blogspot.com
Immigration is not the problem... the immigrants are improving america... but citizens feel threatened by the fact that immigrants will do what they are just too lazy to do. see citizens have never been starved or overworked because all they know how to do is sue everything that talks. this land was ours and were slowly taking it back. all the native americans immigrated here in the first place so talk about hipocracy... instead of fighting to have the whole planet you should think of ways that allies can help you make what you have better. if you really wanted to create a border to keep your people in then you wouldnt have IMMIGRANTS building it. theyre gonna build it and theyre gonna tear it down as well.
Soon our $5.25 minimum-wage will find equalibrium with Mexico’s peasants and race to the bottom. McJob for $2 per day anyone?
just be happy that maria and juan clean up your trash so you can keep your backs from breaking. we mexicans deserve a thank you note not a warrant for arrest.. think back to the Braceros program and who helped YOU out before the great depression. know your facts. we have helped , weve never damaged. so why the hate?
 
Written By: MIRIAM
URL: http://
immigarstion
 
Written By: omar
URL: www.

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider