Fox calls Bush "Jorge" (my title)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Mexican President Vicente Fox (news - web sites), the first state visitor of the Bush presidency, challenged the United States on Wednesday to strike an agreement on immigration by year's end. President Bush (news - web sites) said ``there is no more important relationship'' than with Mexico but did not embrace Fox's ambitious deadline.

The public challenge stunned U.S. officials who have been trying to lower expectations for a deal on the complex and politically risky issue that could legalize millions of undocumented Mexicans. Even some Mexican officials said they had no notice that Fox would push for quick action.

The two-day state visit, an important political event to both Bush and Fox, began promptly at 9:30 a.m. EDT when a military band struck up a Sousa march and the two presidents strolled shoulder to shoulder onto the White House back lawn. Military honor guards stood stone-faced as their battle ribbons, jostled atop flag poles by a cool wind, whipped at their faces.

Bush, hoping to court Hispanic voters for his 2004 re-election bid, said Wednesday's formal welcoming ceremony, one-on-one Oval Office session, rare joint Cabinet meeting and state dinner - along with his and Fox's joint trip Thursday to Ohio - amounted to a ``recognition that the United States has no more important relationship in the world.''

With all the pageantry a president can muster, Bush welcomed Fox to what he called the ``Casa Blanca'' and said, ``We understand that our two nations must work together in a spirit of respect and common purpose to seize opportunities and tackle challenges on the issues that affect the lives of our citizens, including migration, the environment, drugs, crime, corruption and education.''

That included just a glancing reference to the issue that dominates U.S.-Mexican relations: What should be done with the 3 million or so illegal Mexican immigrants who want legal status in America, and millions more in Mexico who want to cross the 2,000-mile border? The president wants an undetermined number of illegal immigrants to become legal.

A joint statement being released Thursday as Bush and Fox tour a Hispanic community center in Toledo, Ohio, commits the pair to forging a ``realistic approach to migration'' that respects ``the human dignity of all migrants, regardless of their (legal) status.''

With a dozen anti-immigration protesters outside the White House gates, Bush and first lady Laura Bush threw Fox an intimate state dinner with an extraordinary finale of fireworks on the South Lawn.

Raising a glass of 7-Up, the teetotaling Bush toasted Fox ``friend to friend, partner to partner, neighbor to neighbor.'' Fox returned the compliment, calling Bush ``Jorge'' and someone he trusts to take action on the immigration problem.

Bush's trip to Mexico in February raised hopes in both countries that an agreement would come quickly, but the leaders have sounded more cautious in recent weeks as congressional conservatives raised objections.

On the eve of their meetings, Bush said the complexity of the issue bars a quick deal and acknowledged that he has ``a lot more selling to do'' in Congress. Fox said Sunday it would take four to six years to complete a comprehensive U.S.-Mexican immigration overhaul.

Flanked by Bush in front of the Truman Balcony, Fox seemed to set a more aggressive timetable.

``We must and we can reach an agreement on migration before the end of this very year which will allow us, before the end of our respective terms, to make sure that there are no Mexicans who have not entered this country legally in the United States and that those Mexicans who have come into the country do so with the proper documents,'' said Fox. His term ends in 2006.

Fox appeared to be calling for an agreement that would be ready for consideration by the respective legislatures of the two countries before the end of the year. But U.S. officials have said that details such as timetables and the numbers of Mexicans who would be eligible have not yet been broached.

Fox believes Mexicans in the United States are not being treated fairly. He says U.S laws should be amended so that migrants receive health, education and labor rights and can work without fear of deportation.

Several administration officials said afterward they would have preferred to avoid the added pressure of a public deadline. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it is impossible to predict whether a comprehensive agreement can be reached this year, given the unease in Congress and fluidity of the talks.

Bush, asked whether he thought Fox's timetable was too ambitious, pretended not to understand the question and joked in Spanish, ``I can't hear.''

His national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), said it would be nice to reach an agreement by year's end, but cautioned, ``The president shares the desire to do it quickly, but to get it right.'' Bush and Fox will release broad outlines of their immigration goals while touring a Hispanic community center in Toledo on Thursday.

Prodding Bush, House Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said he hopes to pass a bill during Fox's visit that would extend by a year the deadline for illegal immigrants to apply for visas.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., chairman of the congressional immigration reform caucus, said the prospects are not good for congressional approval of legislation that would legalize undocumented Mexican aliens.

People should not be rewarded who ``forget about American law, sneak into the country and avoid detection,'' he said.

Bush has acknowledged such concerns, but nonetheless says it would be in the nation's interest to match hardworking Mexicans with American employers.

Fox's remarks reflected the political pressures he faces at home to strike an agreement with Bush. He hopes to quiet critics in Mexico who say he promised much during his landmark election campaign and has delivered little.

I, for one, grew up with stories about my "poor potato farmer" ancestors from Ireland.

And if you had any pride in you, you would have scorned Emma Lazarus for calling them "wretched refuse"!!!

Equating those who came from Ireland to the United States and who became LEGAL CITIZENS and CONTRIBUTORS to rather than thieves from the American taxpayers as a result of a legitimate famine to illegals who are being encouraged by THEIR OWN PRESIDENT to come up here and suck our taxpayer resources dry in order to alleviate the Mexican President of the RESPONSIBILITY of being a good leader just isn't a good comparison, IM.

Uh, Mercuria, would you like to explain what a "legitimate famine" is. That legitimate famine was largely caused by bad British policy that enriched landlords while the Catholic peasantry starved. There are MANY similarities between Irish famine immigration and the current Mexican immigration, not the least of which is that the governments in place shirked responsibility for taking care of their people. The biggest difference is that no welfare state existed in the nineteenth century.

And if you had any pride in you, you would have scorned Emma Lazarus for calling them "wretched refuse"!!!

BTW, I think Lazarus was referring to how they immigrants were commonly perceived in their home countries. She would have considered herself among that refuse.

Don't blame the immigrants. Blame the corrupt despots in their own countries that give them the incentives to leave home for a hostile land where they have to work like dogs.

Exactly- therefore it is immoral to be the pressure relief valve for Mexicos discontented. Address the issue not the symptoms.

There are MANY similarities between Irish famine immigration and the current Mexican immigration, not the least of which is that the governments in place shirked responsibility for taking care of their people.

I doubt the Irish Catholics felt they would receive a warm welcome into England when they were suffering through starvation. What is the Mexican government's explanation for their PRESENT-DAY abandonment of its lower classes to the extent that they're encouraging to come HERE and support themselves...and the same abandoning government from which they fled?

One situation has to do with 19th century hard feelings against Irish Catholics by the British Protestants...hard feelings that existed for two hundred years between Britain and a portion of the Irish population who felt they were being decimated by conquerors. The Irish came here and integrated among the American population.

The other has to with 21st century hard feelings by certain Mexicans against a treaty that THEY signed 150 years ago...but now wish to reject in order for them to promote a "reconquering" program against the United States.

You may not see a difference, but I do.

Your feedback on this would be welcome by me!

BTW, I think Lazarus was referring to how they immigrants were commonly perceived in their home countries.

But how do you know that for certain?

I mean...Ms. Lazarus being dead and all that?

Kind of putting words in the mouth of Lady Liberty, isn't it?

Catholic peasantry didn't feel that they were being decimated, they were being decimated. The Irish were basically pushed out of their own country because the British thought they were an inferior race. During the height of the famine, many landlords evicted their tenants or paid for their passage on "coffin ships" to America. There are many historians today who characterize British policy at the time as one of deliberate genocide. (I am getting the itch to post something on this subject.)

And I need to see a lot more evidence before I would agree to describe Mexican illegal immigration as a plot to recapture parts of this country. I know that there are some radicals who make this claim, but I think most Mexicans are just looking for a way out of extreme poverty. Keep in mind that I do not support unlimited immigration. I understand that it can undercut our own labor force and put undue burdens on taxpayers. But Mexico is our neighbor; it behooves us to think of long terms strategies for improving the quality of life for the average Mexican so that he doesn't want or need to emigrate.

BTW, do a search on Emma Lazarus. If you do, I think you'll agree with what I said about her.

"The New Colossus" is not -- contrary to popular belief -- in the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence, and shouldn't be quoted as if it is such.

Thank you very much.

I'm amazed by those who believe our immigration policy is based upon a poem.

I was at the centennial of the Statue of Liberty in 1986 across the harbor where Ronald Reagan was officially inaugurating the 100th anniversary of that monument with my LEGAL immigrant wife. The United States wasn't built upon illegal immigration, that's your first stupid mistaken comparison. Second, the Irish and other European immigrants not only went through every legal process required to become US citizens, they also had to pass medical screening for deadly and communicable diseases that illegal immigrants never do. Third, these immigrants you site went through a central processing station wherein they waited their turn in an orderly fashion respectful of the great honor they were seeking to acquire. Illegal immigrants flout federal, state, and local laws, disregard and disrespect the legal immigration process, American custom and culture, and piss in the faces of decent, law abiding foreign applicants who do what is necessary and required follow and respect our laws and thus our civilization. Your "assessments" are both ignorant and irrelevant, regardless of the supposed independence of your mind. Also, race baiting and allusions to racism won't extricate a stupid argument excusing criminal acts.

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.