ILLEGAL ALIEN MARCHES WARMLY SUPPORTED IN MEXICO

NEWSMAX.COM ^ | March 29th, 2006 | Allan Wall

[Calugareni]

ILLEGAL ALIEN MARCHES WARMLY SUPPORTED IN MEXICO by Allan Wall

They've been marching in the streets of our cities clamoring for "justice."

Throughout the land, they march - Denver, Sacramento, Chicago, Charlotte, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Phoenix and so on.

Their cause - fighting for the "rights" of illegal aliens and keeping our borders open.

The biggest march of all was March 25th in Los Angeles, Calif., where police estimated the multitude's numbers at 500,000: Half a million people.

That's impressive. Should we therefore give these people everything they want? Many of our politicians seem to think so.

The U.S. Constitution, however, doesn't include street protest as a form of legislation. In fact, the men who drafted our constitution were not fond of what they called "mobocracy." As James Madison put it in Federalist Paper #55, "Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."

Many of the demonstrators are illegal aliens themselves. In other words, they don't even have the right to be in the country, yet they're telling us how to run things. That's chutzpah.

Their defenders assure us that illegal aliens are "living in the shadows."

It doesn't look to me like the people in the L.A. street march were living in the shadows. They were out in broad daylight, marching openly, without fear, dictating to us what our immigration law should be.

Some of them carried signs that read, "If you think I'm ‘illegal' because I'm a Mexican learn the true history because I'm in my homeland."

Indeed, Mexican nationalism, ethnic chauvinism and downright racism were in evidence among L.A. protestors.

Why did so many display the Mexican flag if they are fighting for rights in the United States?

There were protestors with posters reading "Chicano Power" and "This is stolen land." Another poster bore the likeness of Mexican historical figure Emiliano Zapata with the slogan, "Viva Mexico."

Here in Mexico, where I (legally) reside, the L.A. march was called a "Megamarcha" and was warmly reported in the media.

But don't think for a second that Mexico would allow the same sort of nonsense to occur here. Mexico respects her sovereignty too much for that. Even we legal gringos are not allowed to participate in protest marches. In 2002, a number of Americans were immediately expelled for doing just that.

The Mexican Constitution's famous Article 33 gives the Mexican government the right to expel immediately, without right of appeal, any non-Mexican whose presence in the country is "deemed inconvenient."

But when illegal alien Mexicans march in the United States, that's considered a great thing.

In solidarity, a group of demonstrators (some carrying communist party banners) erected a cardboard wall in front of the U.S. Embassy, inscribing it with anti-American slogans.

In the Mexican Congress, it was announced that a document would be drafted, to show support for the protest marches in our country.

Ruben Aguilar, spokesman for President Vicente Fox, made this statement to support the marches: "The recent protests carried out in different places in the United States are indicative of the imminent necessity of a migratory accord that corresponds to the interests of both countries, and that especially to the defense of the rights of migrants. The government of the (Mexican) Republic ratifies its commitment to the Mexicans who live in the United States and its intention to work in the defense of their rights ..."

None of this is surprising. The L.A. protestors and the Mexican government share the same goals: legalize Mexican illegal aliens and keep the borders open.

The Mexican government sees it as a way to relieve economic pressure on the government to reform the economy. Mexico's leaders also work to retain the loyalty of emigrants so that, even if they become American citizens, they retain their loyalty to Mexico. And their plan is working.

Recently the Mexican government published advertisements in leading American newspapers calling for the legalization of illegal immigrants (in the United States, not in Mexico) and "a far-reaching guest workers scheme." Not only that, said the ads, but "in order for a (U.S.) guest workers program to be viable, Mexico should participate in its design, management, supervision and evaluation."

In other words, the Mexican government wants veto power over U.S. immigration policy.

And they might just get it.

After all, many in our own government are only too happy to oblige them.

Allan Wall (allan39@prodigy.net.mx) recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, and currently resides (legally) in Mexico.

[azhenfud]

I hope Bush & company are closely observing what's happening within those marches and protests.

I promise I will do all in my power to help oust asinine politicians who enable those of other countries who dare, in protest, to fly foreign flags on American soil while burning a US flag with the blessings of foreign powers.

If they in Washington have no will to oppose such insurrection among foreigners, they've no business in any public offices of America.

I see no difference between them and those aiding traitors.

[azhenfud]

"....even to threatening to overthrow the US government."

ROTFLOL! "They" certainly need to try. "They" would be buried beneath the soil of their lost "conquista".

"Okay LaRaza! you've got enough clout to take Washington! Gofurit!"

[Conservative4Ever]

I live in a town where the city fathers publicly display the American flag on Cinco de Mayo. Go figure.

[NJ_gent]

"This is about cheap labor."

It's not just cheap labor; it's downright slavery.

[NJ_gent]

"Does the POTUS make the laws?"

No, but he's supposed to enforce them. Hence the whole, 'Executive' thing. The laws on the books say illegals are supposed to be stopped at the border and deported when they're found to have gotten past the border. That isn't being done with any significant effort.

"Has he initiated amnisty?"

He's using his influence in Congress (what little is left) to push for amnesty.

"I thought that was Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton."

Actually, President Clinton did a lot more for border security than President Bush has done (see: Operation Gatekeeper, Operation Hold the Line, et al). President Reagan, frankly, had bigger fish to fry. He was sold on the amnesty once and be done with it plan which ended up failing miserably. President Bush is trying to sell us on the same plan we've already seen fail. How dumb is that?

As it stands, I don't think we're at the point where the President should be impeached. However, if a House-like version of the immigration reform bill goes to his desk and he refuses to sign it, I will drive down to Washington myself and start screaming through a bullhorn for Congress to draft articles of impeachment for the Executive failing to secure the United States of America, and I won't stop shouting until he's removed from office. I sincerely hope that the President's first veto is not used on this very worthwhile legislation.

[McGavin999]

Ah yes, so all those brand new citizens who were sworn in right before Clinton's second election were the product of "Project Gatekeeper".

Don't try to snow me about what a great job Clinton did, I live in Arizona and I know full well how many illegals were coming in here during his term. The safehouses were full to overflowing. If anything, things have been getting better because these safehouses have been getting raided on a pretty regular basis in the past few years. The problem the administration has is there are so many santuary cities. You tell me how you "enforce the law" when cities won't cooperate, when schools refuse to report illegals, when the INS is full of Clintonites who are fully protected by the unions?

[dennisw]

BTTT

[dennisw]

BTT

[McGavin999]

He's not refusing, he's trying to turn a massive bureacracy around, hiring new employees and trying to do something with those who are already employed and protected by the unions. If you know ANYTHING about government, you know that you can't just fire people.

I really have to laugh at all the people who think you can just snap your finger and suddenly new technology appears, trained border guards are on duty, prisons are erected to hold the illegals who have been caught. Bush has been trying to get congress to work on immigration reform since he entered office. In the meantime, he has this little thing called the war on terror to conduct, Iraq and Afghanistan, Katrina and a few other minor details to occupy his mind. If this was such a pressing issue, why weren't you pushing it during Clinton's term, he had absolutly NOTHING of importance going on.

[Pa' fuera]

and is free of a criminal past

that is the rub - there is no way to verify lack of criminal behavior in Mexico. The State Dept isn't verifying it in any meaningful way right now for the hundreds of thousands of annual visa recipients who come into the country legally from Mexico

[SmoothTalker]

Of course it is supported. Their economy depends on the breaking of our laws.

[willyboyishere]

Yes, they are in the country illegally, but just wait until the time when they are officially or semi-officially
"sanctioned" as some kind of "special" or provisional "citizens"---then everything they are doing so boldly, and flagrantly now will be done with equally officially "sanctioned" representation, including yet MORE mayors of major cities, yet more law offices finagling for trumped-up "rights", yet more voluble spokesmen appearing anywhere and everywhere, too eager to play the race and ethnic card to a gullible new constituency. The only way to OFFICALLY deal with stridently obnoxious illegals is to deport them, the way it is done in Mexico and other countries. We won't do that , because our politicians ON BOTH SIDES find more of value in pandering to NEW constituencies than the OLD TRADITIONAL ones: there is so little difference between the two parites on this issue , I can only assume they both have a serious , critical eye on that 1%-3% that always sways an election. But it is the 50% that DON'T VOTE that decide our futures, as is proven by the heavily compromised actual policies that finally get voted into law. SOMETHING TO CHEW ON, and it pays to restate it: the 50% that DON"T VOTE actually hold the key to unlocking the true , always-evasive, changing- by -the -second character of American politics. It is the biggest single party of all ---the Apathy Party.

[old republic]

"Has he initiated amnisty?"

He's using his influence in Congress (what little is left) to push for amnesty.

---

Amnesty means to grant a pardon, and a pardon is defined as the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty. Under this reasoning, the refusal of the President to enforce the laws effectively excuses any criminal from receiving any punishment for the committed crime and can thus be construed as granting a de facto amnesty.

[McGavin999]

And yes, he could snap his finger and stop this problem by putting the military on the border and stopping this invasion

So you want us to pull the military off the war on terror just so they can patrol the desert? Why don't you do that? No skill is needed, just get out there with your buddies and do something. Our warriors are busy.

[skeeter]

Let us face facts the only Americans left are in the Southeast, south of the Potomac River and stopping at the Rio Grand.

I'm guessing you don't get out much. Otherwise you would know just how ignorant that statement is.