Shots across the US/MEX border

The Economist ^ | Jan 12th 2006 | The Economist

[VU4G10]

Plans for a border fence spark anger among Mexicans

COUNTRIES that claim to be the best of friends do not normally shoot across their mutual frontier. But on December 30th, an agent of the United States Border Patrol shot dead an 18-year-old Mexican as he tried to cross the border near San Diego. The patrol says the shooting was in self-defence, and that the dead man was a coyote, or people-smuggler. Vicente Fox, Mexico's president, made a diplomatic protest, and called for an investigation into the shooting. At the other end of the border, in Texas, Border Patrol agents were reportedly shot at from inside Mexico.

These incidents could hardly have come at a worse time. On December 16th, the United States House of Representatives passed by 239 to 182 votes a bill sponsored by James Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin. This would make illegal immigration a felony, create a crime of employing or aiding undocumented migrants, and order “physical infrastructure enhancements” (ie, a fence) along more than a third of the 3,100 kilometre (2,000 mile) border.

The Sensenbrenner bill stands little chance of passing in the Senate. It is not backed by the Bush administration, which has campaigned for tougher enforcement to be combined with a guest-worker programme. This would help give legal status to some of the 10m or so migrants who are in the United States illegally (perhaps 60% of whom are Mexicans).

Nevertheless, the Sensenbrenner bill has caused outrage south of the border. Mr Fox called it shameful. He said migrants were “heroes”, who will in any event find ways to cross the border. Luis Derbez, his foreign minister, called the bill “stupid” and “underhand”.

On January 9th, seven Central American countries, together with Colombia and the Dominican Republic, agreed to work with Mexico to defend their emigrants to the United States. Most of these countries have free-trade agreements with America. They are its closest allies in Latin America, where many governments are less friendly than they were a decade ago.

All this is a far cry from the warmth between Mr Fox and George Bush when both took office. Mexico had high hopes of negotiating agreements on migration. Then came September 11th 2001, and Mexico's opposition at the UN Security Council to the war in Iraq. Some Mexicans say the hopes were always unrealistic. Others say that Mexico—and Mr Derbez in particular—must shoulder much of the blame for them being dashed. Mr Derbez threw out a plan for immigration reform drawn up by his predecessor, Jorge Castañeda, largely out of personal animosity. He is widely seen as an unimpressive minister.

Perhaps Mr Fox's biggest mistake has been his failure to lobby effectively over migration on Capitol Hill. Andrés Rozental, who heads the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (and is Mr Castañeda's half-brother), notes that this contrasts with the effort made to secure passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, when Mexico used its network of over 40 consulates to lobby Congress. Another unused channel of influence is the one-in-12 people born in Mexico who now live in the United States (see chart). Most are there legally and many are eligible to vote.

Despite the public acrimony, Mr Rozental says that day-to-day co-operation between Mexico and the United States on matters such as public health, trade and law enforcement has never been greater. But he believes there is a minimal chance of significant progress on immigration reform under Mr Bush.

There is a broad political consensus that Mexico should push for a guest-worker programme and the regularisation of undocumented migrants in return for beefing up security on its side of the border. None of the candidates in a presidential election due in July is likely to use the issue as justification for anti-American rhetoric of the kind that has become common farther south. Mexico's ties to the United States are too important for that.

But migration will remain a running sore in relations between the two countries. Fences on urban stretches of the border in California and Texas have pushed migrants to the Arizona desert—but have not stopped them. Last year, some 400,000 crossed illegally, of whom over 90% had jobs in Mexico, according to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Centre, a think-tank in Washington, DC. But even unskilled jobs across the border pay much better. NAFTA was supposed to close that gap, but it has not done so yet.

More than 400 Mexicans died in 2005 trying to enter the United States (though in only two cases was the Border Patrol involved). That looms large in Mexican consciousness. Every Mexican knows someone who has crossed the border, if they haven't done so themselves. The harder and more dangerous it gets, the more Mexican public opinion may turn against the United States. The free movement of goods, but not of labour, across the border was always likely to cause problems.

[HiJinx]

He called Social Security to see if he could get them verified and they told him no

That was the first mistake. Whoever he talked to was ignorant, they Social Security Administration has a program in place in all 50 states to verify SS numbers presented by prospective employees. Now, if this friend tried this 2 or more years ago, then the program wasn't in place...

[El Gato]

A few individual contacts are basically meaningless, although

True, but those WW-II Mexicans in the US Military were not anyone I knew, but there were a considerable number of them.

On the Canadian side, you'll note that the Right Wing Wacko conservatives have pulled ahead in their polls. The Pink Cannucks are not long for the PM job to our North.

[doug from upland]

Wait until they try another assault on the Alamo.

VIVA MAX

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Perhaps Mr Fox's biggest mistake has been his failure to lobby effectively over migration on Capitol Hill. . . Mexico used its network of over 40 consulates to lobby Congress.

Boy that pisses me off. Foreign pukes are lobbying our Congress?!

I'll never vote for any SOB member in Congress who listens to foreigners telling him what legislation to support.

And it ain't just Mexico doing it -- and some of the others have "Americans" do it for them.

At least one country requires "Americans" do the lobbying for it and it requires the "Americans" to pay all the costs.

One guess which country.

Bill Gertz in an intreview on KSFO said that Red China requires their useful idiots (U.S. corporations) to keep staffs of lobbyists in Washington to handle the Chi-coms' interest before Congress.

[Doohickey]

The governor of Arizona is pushing the Pentagon for National Guard troops along the south.

The Gov. of Arizona is a Clinton crony. Surely he knows that the Governor controls the state National Guard.

Hint: Lips moving = lie. This is part of a continuing Democrat strategy against the WOT.

[pcottraux]

Okay, I got it.

[swampfox98]

I think what really surprises me is that most Americans have become traitors to their own country, when it comes to the support of open borders and the stealing of tax payers money to take care of Mexico's poor.

Over two hundred years America has remained a sovereign nation - no country would dare to act toward us as Mexico has. But now, thanks to our president, America is becoming an occupied nation that is being taken over by a hostile people, and nobody cares.

There is a point of no return, and we have come to it. No longer do our politicians care about the freedom of this country or the security of its citizens. They are borrowing trillions of dollars to take care of every social program on the planet; they are championing outsourcing all well paying middle class jobs, and they stand by doing nothing while the building industry has fired all its American workers and hired illegals at half the cost and no benefits.

Just once I'd like to see the people who post "A day in the life of President Bush" tell the truth about how many illegals Bush has asked to come to come into the the country illegally today.

[.cnI redruM]

Two things have to happen before I'd even consider a guest worker agreement in a favorable light.

1) The US has to organize our border well enough so that we are aware of two things.
a) Who exactly comes in. (If we can't ID them, or we think their ID is fake, no entry.)
b) What are they bringing. If we think it's dangerous or is intended solely to violate our laws, no entry.)

2) Mexico knows full good and well that a large number of their citizens conspire to cross our borders and violate our laws. They need to step up and fight these people in an honest and forthright manner.

If these things don't happen, very few Mexicans should be allowed across our borders.

[MillerCreek]

Yes, it's that very statement and others like it that drives most of America up the wall...that Fox and others in Mexico instruct repeatedly their own in such nonsense, refuse to learn or acknowledge understanding that the United States even has a border, isn't mere land territory of Mexico there to plunder, use at will, "heroically" exploit.

The statement and others like it reinforces the perception that criminality in Mexico is considered "good character" and that to be law abiding (illegal immigration is a felony under the laws of the U.S.) is to be NOT "heroic."

[MillerCreek]

As an aspect to these issues...how do people here feel about the position by the United States Chamber of Commerce? They are lobbying Congress for AMNESTY for illegal aliens ("migrant workers" they say similarly to Fox) and a Guest Worker program because they claim both are necessary to compensate for "labor shortage" in the U.S.

[r9etb]

IT WORKS! BUILD IT NOW!

It won't work, because it doesn't really address the causes of the problem. There are essentially two things driving it:

1. Americans are paying Mexicans to cross the border.

2. It serves the purposes of Mexican politicians to keep the flow of immigrants going.

a. It brings hard US currency into Mexico
b. It provides an outlet for the more "restless" Mexicans to leave -- we're talking here more about honest workers, though there's a criminal element, too.

No amount of wall-building will address those problems.

[MillerCreek]

I agree (that it is self defeating to try to pursue and promote one idea over another)...the successful solution is a multi-solution approach, pursuing and developing all the solutions simultaneously: a border wall, military, punishment for employing illegal aliens, removing taxpayer funded supports/"rewards" for illegal aliens in the U.S., correcting the "anchor baby" misapplication of the 14th Amendment, deportations of illegal aliens, a huge invoice to Mexico for social services in the U.S. used already by Mexican citizens in the U.S. illegally...all of it.

And no Guest Worker programs, none, whatsoever, until AFTER these conditions are resolved. THEN assess whether or not the U.S. has to import unskilled labor and not employ Americans first.

[ridesthemiles]

"Fences on urban stretches of the border in California and Texas have pushed migrants to the Arizona desert"

IT WORKS! BUILD IT NOW!""

It has occurred to me that if the invaders won't respect our borders and the existing fences, when they get to my neighborhood, they won't respect my fences, either!!!!

[r9etb]

THEN assess whether or not the U.S. has to import unskilled labor and not employ Americans first.

How does "the U.S." assess this? Doesn't the current situation suggest that "the U.S." has already done so?

It appears that what you're really suggesting is the "the U.S. Government" needs to assess it, and that "the U.S. Government" will decide on whether or not to import labor.

There are reasonable arguments for and against this; my point is simply that your suggestion is basically a call for government involvement in the labor market.

[Dan Evans]

your suggestion is basically a call for government involvement in the labor market.

What's wrong with the government deciding how many foreign workers we have?

[r9etb]

What's wrong with the government deciding how many foreign workers we have?

There's not necessarily anything wrong with it. But we need to be clear that that is exactly what's being suggested; just as we need to be clear that "American business" (if you'll excuse my broad brush) seems already to have decided that it wants to hire illegal aliens, despite the fact that it's illegal to do so.

This points out a more general, and more serious problem on our side of the border.

[Tammy8]

I'm not sure when he had the issue with Social Security; but I am glad they will now verify numbers for employers.

[Dan Evans]

"American business" (if you'll excuse my broad brush) seems already to have decided that it wants to hire illegal aliens,

The honest ones won't, the greedy ones will. After they get tired of paying lawyers, and fines to keep out of jail, they will stop.

But if we allow the dishonest employers to do illegal things, we will soon have nothing but dishonest business in the country. In other words, we will be just like Mexico.

[Tammy8]

Though I agree that President Bush has not made me happy with his border policies; he by no means is the only one. Every President that I know of starting with Carter has made the border issues worse or ignored them completely. I do not blame Bush for all the problems, but I wish he would work to solve them. We have not had a President in recent history who understood or cared about the border issues.