Posted on 12/05/2005 1:03:30 PM PST by DumpsterDiver
Diehard optimists still hoping for a forward-looking binational migration accord based on mutual respect and regional cooperation got hit with a cruel dose of reality last week. As a flood of xenophobia-tinged border security and immigrant-crackdown bills work their way through both houses of the U.S. Congress, President Bush delivered a long-awaited major speech that left no doubt about how Mexico's neighbor and trading partner will deal with reform.
The message comes down to this: The United States will not regularize the millions of undocumented immigrants working in its territory. It will instead seek more efficient ways to find them, punish them, and deport them. It will not work with Mexico to find creative solutions to what's essentially a cross-border job supply-and-demand inequity. Instead it will seal the border against Mexican workers using every means available, from Berlin-style walls to unmanned aircraft.
And it will do these things on its own as it sees fit. Mexico will just have to live with whatever the United States comes up with.
The reaction here to the speech was predictably negative. Spokespersons for mall [sic] three major parties issued statements condemning the shortsightedness of Bush's hardline, unilateralist approach. Foreign Relations Secretary Ernesto Derbez criticized the very idea of border walls, a criticism President Fox has voiced in the past.
Yet the complaints were not as vociferous as might have been expected. It's as though Mexico has resigned itself for the time being to a passive role in an issue the United States is going to dominate one way or another. Perhaps with foresight, Colegio de la Frontera president Jorge Santibáñez Romellón warned a year ago that there was no way to steer the United States away from a hardline border policy that approaches migration as a security issue not open to the give and take of negotiation.
"I think it's better for Mexico to face up to this reality that to obsessively insist on a migration accord that nobody believes in any more and that isn't going to happen in the reasonably short term anyway," he wrote.
A more justifiable dose of reality that sovereignty-minded Mexico should have no trouble swallowing is the United States' right to control its borders and regulate immigration. One can advocate virtually open two-way migration limited only by the job market, and still recognize that the current chaos of clandestine crossings and irregular employment can't continue indefinitely. Bush put it well when he said, "TheAmerican people should not have to choose between a welcoming society and a lawful society. We can have both at the same time."
But there's doubt among pols and pundits on both sides of the border that Bush's plan can lead to either. He may have doomed his efforts at the outset by trying to synthesize two approaches - one that will appease the rabid nativists whose support he still needs, and one that might actually work.
For example, there's skepticism that a beefed-up border will accomplish much more than shifting job seekers to more dangerous entry points. Hence it won't result in fewer illegal immigrants, just more dead ones. A proposed 2,000-mile, border-long wall from Chula Vista to Brownsville might work somewhat better, but at an unacceptably high cost to the treasury, the environment, and what's left of the United States' image abroad. The Bush administration opposes such a fence, but it's included in some of the House bills.
Then there's the question of what to do with all the existing undocumented immigrants. The most realistic (not to mention easiest and most humane) solution would be to regularize their status, which would clear the decks for a smoother implementation of two key elements in the Bush plan — better enforcement of the hiring laws and a guest worker program to fill job slots as needed.
But many are uncomfortable with legalizing the illegals. Right-wing Republicans are horrified by it. Bush opposes it. The concern is that "amnesty" would amount to "rewarding those who have broken the law" (Bush's words).
This seems a hopelessly abstract, pious posture in the face of a complicated on-the-ground situation involving millions of families. We're talking about wage-workers here, not embezzlers or extortionists. As many have pointed out, the blanket rejection of including any kind of regularization in the package reeks of political pandering, not policy.
What was most disturbing about Bush's immigration speech was its total exclusion of Mexico as a nation that might have a stake in the issue. Mexico was merely the place where the problem was coming from, Mexicans the ones causing the problem. Run your find function on the text of Bush's Arizona speech and you'll get no hits for "Fox," "bilateral," or "cooperation." The existence of some 11 million Mexican citizens in the United States is apparently only an American concern.
The speech emphasized criminality, whether it was discussing terrorists, drug runners or immigrants. This fudging of the difference between true security threats and undocumented workers was only part of the speech's strategy. The language of siege and invasion was repeatedly invoked, effectively dehumanizing immigrants. Detailed discussion of the difference between "catch and release" and "catch and return" left little doubt about how far up the evolutionary ladder "illegal entrants" should be thought of.
Keep in mind that Bush is by no means the most extreme voice in this choir. As too often happens, the pursuit of black-and-white solutions to complicated problems and the need for identifiable culprits has created a spreading hysteria. Listen to what one representative said about migrant workers from Mexico in a statement of support for the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy Senate bill, considered the most likely to pass in some form: "They are illegal immigrants — they have broken the law and must be punished. That is why this legislation includes strict fines and penalties for those already in this country illegally . . ."
So we're looking at a round-up of millions of workers, mostly from the same ethnic group, because their papers aren't in order? The image is as frightening as it is familiar. Is that what passes for enlightened immigration reform these days?
We can only hope that Santibáñez was wrong, that all the overblown rhetoric will tone itself down in favor of reasonable legislation, and that diplomats at some level are quietly preparing for some kind of Mexico-U.S. migration summit. Working without Mexico on immigration and border issues is a serious mistake by the United States. Working against Mexico on this issue, as is close to being the case already, would be more than serious. It would be dangerous.
[Shiver me timbers!]
I get the feeling that the reporter heard a different speech than I did.
Nah, same speech...it's just that the reporter was expecting to hear one set of facts, and heard something entirely different. That is, our President spoke to our concerns, not Mexico's, for a change.
Yeah, it kind of works that way, unless you forbid any of your people from immigrating here.
BWWHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I wonder if the guy puffed out his chest when he wrote that.
Mexico has the right to set its' own immigration policy without US intervention, and we retain that very same right. it goes along with sovereignty. doesn't make us xenophobes or whatever clever names they want to call us.
I don't remember the Mexican government asking our state department how the U.S. might feel when they started publishing comic books instructing their citizens how to violate our laws without getting caught.
I think diplomats should suggest to Mexico that they open their borders to any USA citizen who wants to go to Mexico and live forever, but allow them to retain USA citizenship, but vote in Mexican elections. Yhey can buy any property they wish, any business they wish, be eligible for any government program available to Mexican citizens, travel anywhere they wish. If they want to talk about fair, make it fair, not just one sided in Mexico's favor. Then all our retirees can buy property in Mexico and we can take over their economy as well. Mexico can be the 51st State as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe we need a few thousand Americans to walk across the border (not at a legal port of entry), squat some place, set up a tent city, and then dare them to make us leave.
Yes, long time coming if you ask me. Also this points out how silly it is when we do try to work with Mexico on border issues. I have known for years Mexico wants open borders and nothing else will make them happy. That's why it is so funny when I hear that "Mexican authorities" are working with US to help stop drug/people smuggling. Give me a break!!
I'm glad this guy is showing Mexico's true colors, hope this gets a lot of coverage. I can always hope.
Since you ask.... yes, yes it is. Thank you for noticing. :^)
I understand you can be shot trying to enter Mexico from the south. No hypocrisy here, nosiree...
The dirty secret is that Mexico rivals the South African Apartheid regime in terms of racism. Fox and his cronies are white, and if they could, they would love to foist all of Mexico's Indian population on the US.
From what I know about the corruption in Mexico, the police would probably rob, rape, and ransom the Americans.
Mexican go home. And stay there, damnit!
Meanwhile, the Mexican government has military troops stationed on its southern border to prevent foreigners from Central America and South America from illegally entering Mexico. It looks as if the xenophobic Mexican government is cracking down on immigrants who want to enter Mexico.
Poor babies. How about these messages to the author of this article and all of his ilk:
#1, it's not a Berlin style wall you bellyaching fool. That wall kept people bottled up in a repressive regime inside that oppressive regime. This one will keep illegal entrants out of a free one. If you can't see the difference, its either because you are hoplelessly ignorant, hopelessly biased, or you have another agenda entirely that is not in the best interest of the US...and for us Americans, that is what this is about.
#2, OF COURSE it is a plan fashioned by Americans that Mexicans will have to live with. It impacts issues on American soil, in our soveriegn territory. Soveriegn means we have exclusive control of it. Again...check on your literacy or your bias. In either case, we Americans will take care of our own problems on our soveriegn soil to our best interests.
If that happens to be something Mexicans agree with...great. If not, elect a government that can deal with it yourselves there south of the border on your soveriegn soil.
Finally, as much as this writer and his ilk would like to try and paint it differently...none of the issues currently under serious consideration are anti-immigration. They are anti-illegal entry. And that is how it should be. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Mexicans themselves and the measures they use on their own southern border. Talk about hypocritical...but hey, that's their border and their way of handling their own problem.
We allow them that...and we will handle our own in our own way as well.
See my post number 18.
"As a flood of xenophobia-tinged border security and immigrant-crackdown bills work their way through both houses of the U.S. Congress,..."
"A more justifiable dose of reality that sovereignty-minded Mexico should have no trouble swallowing is the United States' right to control its borders and regulate immigration."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.