Posted on 10/27/2002 11:08:31 AM PST by B4Ranch
CABO SAN LUCAS, Mexico- President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox discussed migration issues Sunday, offering no signs of forward movement on Fox's goal of a better deal for Mexican migrants who cross the border illegally.
Bush said he shares Fox's concerns about migration, but gave no indication of how - or when - he planned to address it. The two leaders met on the sidelines of the two-day Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, hosted here by Fox.
But Secretary of State Colin Powell said the climate may be more favorable in 2003.
Bush said, "We have had a mutual desire to deal with the migration issue in a way that recognizes reality and in a way that treats the Mexican citizens who are in the United States with respect. We will continue to work on this issue." Bush spoke with the Mexican president seated nearby.
Mexico wants legal status for many of the estimated 3 million Mexicans living in the United States as part of a broader liberalization program.
The two leaders discussed the issue a week before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks last year, and Bush seemed receptive.
In the aftermath, however, the mood in the United States shifted to one that emphasized the need for greater security along America's borders. Support for migration reform virtually disappeared in Washington.
Powell acknowledged that trend but said, "As we get to a more normal life and as we bring our homeland into a firmer basis of security ... I think some of the concerns that Americans have and Congress has had with respect to migration issues might be in a better position."
The Bush-Fox consultation was their first since Fox canceled an August visit to four Texas cities and to Bush's ranch to protest the state's execution of convicted police killer Javier Suarez Medina, whom Fox said was a Mexican national.
Indeed, their joint appearance contrasted sharply with the ostentatious displays of friendship between the two men last year and U.S.-Mexican relations appeared at a low point not seen since the 1980s. There were no remarks by Fox welcoming Bush to Mexico, his aloofness reflecting his disappointment that the migration issue and others vital to the relationship had been largely set aside.
However, Fox was more conciliatory in his appearance with Bush than he has been at the APEC meeting.
While he criticized U.S. farm subsidies all week, he spoke Saturday of negotiations between the two countries on agricultural duties, which he said were making "important progress." And while he has complained of lack of action on the migration accord, he spoke of "complete agreement" with Bush on how to improve conditions in the Mexican countryside, and invited Bush to Mexico for a state visit.
"At this time there aren't specific solutions, because the topics are varied," Fox said.
I might accept some deal that admits the NEXT half million, forcing most here to go back and cross again, but nothing that wouls allow peons to come over and claim they had a prior right based on having snuck in before the amnesty ended.
Further, as a measure of good faith, I would insist, as a precondition of any dicussion of migration, the Mexicans stopped the flow of drugs. Sure, this would hit Fox in the pocket and hurt many of his drug lord and PANista friends, but there has to be some reason for the US to even talk.
Bush just doesn't get it. Powell is an idiot. The immigration and security issues are as inseparable as last 9/12. One of those two amateurish "snipers" who held Washington hostage for a month was an illegal alien.
Bad enough we have so many illegal aliens voting (illegally) in our elections. This would allow all of those things over 18 to vote in our elections. If we think we're paying high taxes and have too many entitlement programs now, imagine what taking in Mexico and their votes would do to this country. What a nightmare!
Imagine what that would do to surrounding Counties with a similar budget deficit. Do you think it might prompt them to do a similar action?
Do you think it might convince the State officials that we citizens are serious in our desire to protect our communities from being over run by illegal aliens?
The reason I chose a lesser populated County rather than a crowded one is that I think this idea would be easier to discuss with the local residents if you are only dealing with a few thousand instead of a few million. This would be a good way to keep taxes and crime down to bearable rates. Just think about not having to build a new school to educate illegal alien children! Or hire more police officers to control the crime rates.
I think this would be the thing that would make President Bush decide he could use the military - against American citizens!!!!!!!
Something has to be done - but I feel sure the talks about immigration is 'BE quiet just a little longer Fox, just until after the elections. We can then get everything we wanted.'
It is still just amazing to me that illegal immigration is a non-issue in this election, except for Tancredo. I wish just one other politician would have the intestinal fortitude to come out against it in the campaign. I think if a politician would have facts and figures and tell the truth, he would win hands down.
thanks for the ping.
jorge -- pronounced whore-hey...
Illegals must be summarily deported.
"The long-term answer for the migration issue is to work in a way that encourages commerce on both sides of the border so people can find jobs here in Mexico, for starters. That's the long-term solution."
Cato Institute: "Willing Workers"
...and download the full report. Its author, Daniel Griswold, is at the Cato Institute (Libertarian think tank). He wrote an Op-Ed piece for the pro-immigration Wall Street Journal last week. The report is amazing! It lays out the case for recognizing the "reality" of Mexican workers, and their "benefit" to the U.S. And what is that? Cheap labor.
One of the other "benefits" it reviews is that each Mexican immigrant costs the U.S. Taxpayer a net $89,000!!!
You'll see that these pro-immigration Wall Street Republicans (e.g. Bush) are doing the bidding for the likes of the National Restaurant Association, and other employers of cheap unskilled labor. They want to hire these people cheap, reap the profits, and stick the taxpayer with the bill for Government services the immigrants use.
at least Reagan spoke a good small government game.
well, at least until he granted amnesty.
Exactly! I started out at age 16 as a dishwasher. Seeing the taxes taken out of my pay made me a Republican. I went back to that old restaurant recently and in the kitchen it was all Mexican.
The federal Gov't may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command State' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our consdtitutional system of dual sovereignty.
Justice Antonin Scalia, Mack vs US., June 27, 1997
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.