Posted on 05/12/2005 5:55:18 PM PDT by JesseJane
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Global Policy Program
International Migration Policy Program /event
On February 15, 2001, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Migration Policy Program hosted a breakfast briefing featuring three members of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel, which released a report on February 14 to U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox including proposals to change and improve the relationship of the U.S. and Mexico regarding migration. Speakers included Demetri Papademetriou, Co-Director of the International Migration Policy Program and the U.S. Convenor of the panel; Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum; and B. Lindsay Lowell, Director of Research at Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of International Migration. Deborah W. Meyers, Associate at the International Migration Policy Program, was the moderator.
Demetri Papademetriou commented on the general themes and goals of the panel. The panel avoided making detailed proposals which would only suffer the "death of a thousand cuts," like many proposals do in Washington. It is detailed enough to provide the main principles for discussion and policy and offers several broad ideas. The panel is trying to take advantage of the meeting on February 16 between Presidents Bush and Fox. Papademetriou emphasized that the panel's work is a truly bilateral effort. The report gives an image of how the panel visualizes a different relationship with Mexico and emphasizes the need for a package of integrated proposals and cooperative efforts between the two countries, rather than unilateral single-issue policies. It considers the confluence of economics, demographics, and politics on the issue of migration. In the area of politics, the two new presidents are both former governors and businessmen who understand that their economies are highly integrated and interdependent. Since 1994, two-way trade between the U.S. and Mexico has tripled; Mexico is the U.S.'s second largest trading partner. Labor markets are also integrated. Policy-makers must think regionally, starting with NAFTA. Papademetriou stated that if there is not a commitment to most of the ideas in the report, the policy cannot be successful in changing the terms of the debate over the U.S.-Mexico relationship. The panel has a firm conviction that the status quo has created a black market which undermines law enforcement and causes too many deaths. Frank Sharry spoke next. He said that the panel has been working on the report for six months and included a variety of perspectives. The panel's members wanted to ask if there was a way to refashion the debate about migration between the U.S. and Mexico. They also wanted their proposals to respond to reality. The panel's report calls on the U.S. and Mexico to craft a "grand bargain" that would be mutually beneficial, make migration safe, legal, orderly, and predictable, and decrease migratory pressures over time. The report calls for a reconceptualization of the border as a "line of convergence rather than a line of defense." Sharry listed the four main principles suggested by the panel to guide future discussions:
1. Improve the treatment of Mexican migrants by making legal visas and legal status more widely available and making legality the norm. The panel tried not to be very detailed and wanted to state premises to guide policy-making rather than promote specific policies. One way to make legality the norm is to institute legalizing mechanisms; some examples might be expanding and expediting family visas, expanding work visas, and implementing temporary worker programs. Temporary migration programs should be in response to measurable market needs and should meet certain criteria: equitable labor rights that can be meaningfully enforced, social and health protections, and reasonable options for temporary migrants who qualify to apply for permanent residency. The panel feels that only legalizing migrants in the U.S. or only providing more legal means for those who wish to come to the U.S. will perpetuate the unacceptable status quo; both must be addressed.
2. Call on Mexico to collaborate with the U.S. to reduce illegal migration. There should be cooperative efforts to crack down on smuggling organizations and work together to protect human rights in the border area.
3. Governments should work together to build a viable border region.
4. The long-term solution is the growth of the Mexican economy. Mexico has acknowledged that it must take primary responsibility for its development; however, the NAFTA partners and certain financial institutions should help. Remittance-based development programs are among options to reach this goal.
Sharry emphasized that picking and choosing the elements in the report is likely to undermine the overall effort's effectiveness. Lindsay Lowell said that it is an appropriate time for these issues to be addressed due in part to current and likely future demographics. The Mexican economy is growing rapidly and generating more jobs. Lowell said he sees three particularly important points in the report. The first is that it is a bilateral, grand bargain; the Mexican government is willing to make a change from its past non-involvement in the issue. Second, the report is a whole package whose elements must be taken together. Third, the report suggests incremental action; it is not recommending that the two governments open the border now.
Lowell said that the U.S. must deal with the Mexican migrant population already living in the U.S. There are many ways to address that issue; expanding family visas and work visas is something to discuss and may be among the ways to help solve the issue. The panel also calls for pilot temporary worker programs. The key is Mexico's greater cooperation; the report does not call for elimination of border controls but for an increase in cooperation of many types along the border. Human rights at the border are also important; there must be an effort to stop deaths at the border. The U.S. should facilitate the flow of legal migration. Also, Mexican economic development is important; remittances alone cannot accomplish it, and certain banks and microcredit organizations should be involved.
Meyers said that the U.S. has two neighbors and must consider how these policies affect Canada, as well. The report proposes equal treatment for Mexico and Canada and special treatment for both countries; perhaps Mexico and Canada should be exempt from the normal immigration formula
Summary by Kerry Boyd
But thanks for the encouragement ;-)
DM... This didn't start with GWB. The more I read, the more I realize what has been developing since the 60's. However, *I* am of the opinion the Clinton administration kicked this into high gear in '94, '95 to ensure they retained the WH, and lock in large electoral states. I know others will disagree and find equal weight contributing to the problem around the spectrum. But, to me, the doors were swung open the caught the Repubs blindsighted...or shortsighted... or well, going to get in on it by going RINO, to straddle the fence and still manage to keep their cushy job in DC. Again, this is just my little rant. I do not blame W for this whole debacle, but I am NOT happy that he has not been forthcoming with the public about this. Both parties will have to answer in 2006. So, it's up to us to make a last ditch effort to make sure only citizens, not legal guests, are able to vote for OUR representation.
I'm not here to argue about where more fault lies, I just wanted to understand what the heck has been going on, and now, how as Americans can we change what appears to be a backroom deal selling us out.
Thanks - and here's one for you. It went up since we have been on this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402160/posts
It's about voting... He want's (as does the radical hispanic lobbies) his people to participate in our political process. D/L's are the *magic key* for his government to have voice in ours. GRAND BARGAIN, NO? Look at CA for proof of the influence of the radical lobbies and their freebies to illegals. It has been one of the largest 3 factors bankrupting the states. And now, we see, America is asking for more of the same for the whole country... Bahhhhhhhhhhh.
And about those 'guest workers' shoved at us through the manipulation of the visa program, shall they vote in both countries??
Frank Sharry spoke next. He said that the panel has been working on the report for six months and included a variety of perspectives.
February 15, 2001 minus 6 months = August 15,2000.
Who was president on August 15, 2000?
Since 1994, two-way trade between the U.S. and Mexico has tripled;
Who was president in 1994?
Firstly JJ, the Dems will NEVER "answer" for turning the U.S. into a Third World country. It's always been their goal to begin with -- socialism.
The responsibility for the US maintaining its greatness has always been with the GOP and conservatism to uphold.
In THIS regard, they have not only let us down but President Bush as its leader is LARGELY responsible -- especially in light of 9/11.
Conclusion?
ALL Americans who hold dear the sovereignty of our Republic have been bamboozled and sold moth-eaten bill of goods.
What would past American patriots Washington, Adams, Revere, Henry, Teddy Roosevelt, Pershing, Patton, and McArthur say about a President who actually encourages a foreign invasion?
DO THE MATH.
Oh sure, why not, it will be only one country by then anyway, dontcha know.
:p wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh... ~stabs out eyes after reading that~
But now we're stuck with a lame duck Prez who's blatently undermining U.S. sovereignty at the Mexican border. AND he's got nearly a full term left to wreak havoc as the rest GOP and the Judiciary lie down like dogs.
"Illegal immigration, and the border AND Judges are THE MOST CRITICAL issues for the 2006 election."
Aye!!!...
If W is true to form, bet the farm the pooch will be royally screwed regarding the SCOTUS nominations.
Thanks DM.. But Bush can not make law.. that's the good thing..
Now as far as that pooch is concerned, I'm concerned (as Dachle would say)/s
I like the field in play so far. But I thought I liked Alberto Gonzalez too, and am re-thinking that.
Next week, it's the nuclear option. Either the dems go for up or down vote or it's nuke time. IF, Frist backs down, then we'll know, to 'hide the pooch'.
But, 2006 is around the corner.. and we all must keep the pressure up...turn it up... whatever it takes... to throw BUMS OUT.
Believe me, I understand how steamed you are... me too. We are on the same side brother, even if we don't agree on every single ding-dang point.. :)
This is an excellent post as it clarifies the illegal immigration situation and puts it into perspective.
I disagree with you regarding who kicked this into gear. It is my opinion that George H. Bush started the ball rolling at the end of the first Gulf War. I remember his speeches talking about the One World Order. Before this war GH Bush went to practically every country in the world to get agreements and help for this war. Because so many countries assisted in that war, this was his rationale for the One World Order. He dropped in the polls right after this. He also kept pushing NAFTA in speeches. He tried to deliver NAFTA but failed as the Democrats blocked it.
When Clinton was elected, he pushed NAFTA through with the help of Republicans. I think this is the reason GH Bush and Clinton are so buddy, buddy. There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary is picked as the next President. Whether she will win is another story.
Your links are excellent. Thanks for posting this.
Read this for some background on what is happening.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Spivey/phyllis2.htm
This is an interesting post.
Thank you so much for your post. I have obviously not done my home work on GHWB. Thank you for taking the time to clue me in. I have not yet, but will, read the link you provided.
Only one thing remains holding Clintons feet to the fire, IMO, and that is the lifting of the 'cap' of illegals that would be "allowed" into the country.. Not legal immigrants, but illegals. When I can put my eyeballs back on the document with the accurate dates and figures, I'll post it. However, if memory serves me half well, in '94 Clinton essentially eliminated the 'cap' of illegals from something like 7500 per year to 65,000. Again, essentially the opening of the floodgate. This was done, as I read it, for votes to slam dunk a 2nd term. Then, taking state legislatures was next.. and indeed, that happened in CA. I'm specifically referring to those supported by MALDEF/LARAZA etc. To ensure BlueState Lock. That's how I developed my opinion about Clinton's complicity in this.
But now, you have given me more facts to absorb. Much appreciated.
Thanks.
BTTT for later
That was an excellent link. Thank you; bookmarked as well.
Check this out: It has numbers I've never seen before.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-5_13_05_FH.html
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.