Posted on 05/16/2006 2:15:57 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) -
Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants.
Mexican border officials also said they worried that sending troops to heavily trafficked regions would push illegal migrants into more perilous areas of the U.S.-Mexican border to avoid detection.
President Bush announced Monday that he would send 6,000 National Guard troops to the 2,000-mile border, but they would provide intelligence and surveillance support to Border Patrol agents, not catch and detain illegal immigrants.
"If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station. He did not offer further details.
Mexican officials worry the crackdown will lead to more deaths. Since Washington toughened security in Texas and California in 1994, migrants have flooded Arizona's hard-to-patrol desert and deaths have spiked. Migrant groups estimate 500 people died trying to cross the border in 2005. The Border Patrol reported 473 deaths in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.
In Ciudad Juarez, Julieta Nunez Gonzalez, local representative of the Mexican government's National Immigration Institute, said Tuesday she will ask the government to send its migrant protection force, known as Grupo Beta, to more remote sections of the border.
Sending the National Guard "will not stop the flow of migrants, to the contrary, it will probably go up," as people try to get into the U.S. in the hope that they could benefit from a possible amnesty program, Nunez said.
Juan Canche, 36, traveled more than 1,200 miles to the border from the southern town of Izamal and said nothing would stop him from trying to cross.
"Even with a lot of guards and soldiers in place, we have to jump that puddle," said Canche, referring to the drought-stricken Rio Grande dividing Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, Texas. "My family is hungry and there is no work in my land. I have to risk it."
Some Mexican newspapers criticized President Vicente Fox for not taking a stronger stand against the measure, even though Fox called Bush to express his concerns.
A political cartoon in the Mexico City newspaper Reforma depicted Bush as a gorilla carrying a club with a flattened Fox stuck to it.
Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Tuesday that Mexico accepted Bush's statement that the sending in the National Guard didn't mean militarizing the area. He also said Mexico remained "optimistic" that the U.S. Senate would approve an immigration reform "in the interests of both countries."
Aguilar noted that Bush expressed support for the legalization of some immigrants and implementation of a guest worker program.
"This is definitely not a militarization," said Aguilar, who also dismissed as "absolutely false" rumors that Mexico would send its own troops to the border in response.
Bush has said sending the National Guard is intended as a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up resources to more effectively secure the border.
In Nuevo Laredo, across from Laredo, Texas, Honduran Antonio Auriel said he would make it into the U.S.
"Soldiers on the border? That won't stop me," he said. "I'll swim the river and jump the wall. I'm going to arrive in the United States."
---
Associated Press Writer Mark Stevenson in Mexico City contributed to this report.
--
So, does mexico have bi-lingual ballots? Since we're now subjects of Presidente Vincente Fox I'm curious of how this works. Do I have the right to vote in their elections? Address greivances? Or are gringos ineligible.
I do assume my tax money will be directed to their govenrment right? Elites always want more money. I suppose our puppet government might rouse itself to protest that much, but Vincente will win the argument of course.
Now Bush has done it and Fox is angry with him. Bush must capitulate for the sake of the homeland.
Viva Bush.....
It is beyond outrageous. Mexico is truly an enemy nation.
Many millions more have come in on Bush's watch, AFTER 9/11.
It's inexcusable to have a sieve of a border when we are in a war for our survival.
And Bush is going to make it legal.
So I give him more blame than his predecessors.
When our President and our Congress gave our Country away.
Future Headline (Reuters): "The parents of Honduran boca grande, Antonio Aurel, today filed suit for wrongful death in the International Court of Comical Claims at the Hague"
(These are the words of a HOSTILE foreign power)
No. These are the words of an embattled politician whose population wants to fight to keep the border open, and who is about to be replaced by a leftist socialist a la Castro. That would be lovely since Mexico is the single highest source of our oil.
Let's see if the House holds the line. They're our last hope.
Please wake me for surely I'm dreaming this nightmare.
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question in my tagline..
It seems as if this turd world hell hole to the south wants to go to war with us. I say let's give them what they want. BLOAT BLOAT BLOAT
A failure is a failure.
Maybe, maybe not. Time to consider the bigger picture. Elections are coming soon to Mexico and socialist Hugo Chavez is meddling in Mexico's politics. If a leftist Government (further left that the current one) gets elected, the exodus from Mexico will get severely worse. In addition we will have an openly hostile Government on our southern border. Best to let GW appease the Mexican voters until a conservative (relatively speaking) Government gets elected and work with them to solve the economic problems. Meanwhile we need to get our borders closed and remove the anchor baby legislation. Make it clear that we will offer no amnesty and begin to enforce our existing immigration laws.
Taco Bell. Cheap labor. We would not have vegetables without them. We cannot survive without them. We are incapable of functioning without them.
Please excuse me while I go puke real quick.
The answer is no. I posted this on another thread:
At this point, the best plan is no plan. Since it's apparent that illegals are not going to be deported or encouraged to leave via employer sanctions, it's better to let them be absorbed via anchor babies than to actually enact legislation that formalizes amnesty for generations to come.
Since no plan is the logical outcome, social, legal & business planners are busy projecting what this will mean in terms of political, economic and business opportunities. From this perspective, it's actually quite easy: if you want to know what lies in store for America, look no further than Los Angeles.
I have to admit that I've personally benefited from the influx of illegals. And so too will the rest of the nation, but not by the means most would assume. That is, the true gain is not via employment, but real estate. LA is one of the most segregated regions in the country - there are millions of unassimilated Hispanics.
What does this mean in terms of real estate? Suburban flight - a big part of the price hikes seen in 'secure' areas (ie no substandard housing, no apartments, self-contained school district, etc). LA is the future - you don't have to compromise your ethics in terms of dealing with illegals to gain from their presence.
we act weak to other nations and they will roll over us and not respect us. that is one part of the amnesty proposal it makes us look weak so they are going to complain about everything. Thanks a lot Senate and President.
OH! That's right, silly me.
You took the word right out of my mind. I think it's time to kick their asses again! Conquering Mexico is the cheapest of ALL options.
Give or take infiltration of millenium bombers, we have none of the problem with Canada that we have with Mexico. Why is that? Is it just that Canadians mostly speak English? No, it's also the fact that Canada is not quite the socialist "paradise" that Mexico is. Both countries have a tendency to define themselves as not the USA. Which is fine, assuming that they can live decently that way.But when you get to where you're being different from having a reasonably honest, professional police force, and different from having an effective democratic system, and diffferent from having economic opportunity . . . at some point there is a difference between raising German Shephards as pets and raising them as attack dogs. At some point the neighbors have a right to object when attack dogs are allowed to run free.
If you are going to raise your children to have the ambition to move to the United States, at least have the courtesy to them and to us to teach them English in school. And teach them to be grateful if they are treated better here even when it's known that they have broken a law than they are in Mexico. And not to teach them to aspire to divide the USA. If you are raising them to go to the United States, raise them to become Americans.
'Course if you do that, they may decide that Mexico should be less different than the US, and then where would you be?
See my post #94 - there's no excuse for not taking advantage of a situation that is as predictable as illegal 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.