Sanctions against Mexico possible this year

Valley Morning Star ^ | Nov. 15, 2002 | Steve Taylor

[madfly]

AUSTIN — The United States could impose sanctions before the end of the year in retaliation for Mexico’s failure to honor a water treaty, a federal government official has confirmed.

International Boundary and Water Commission Commissioner Carlos M. Ramirez told a state Senate border affairs committee hearing Thursday that he was not at liberty to discuss the State Department’s "plans," but did testify on halting the delivery of water to Mexico from the Colorado River.

"There are plans that will be put in motion against Mexico," Ramirez said after submitting four-pages of written testimony to the committee chaired by Brownsville state Sen. Eddie Lucio.

"Possible sanctions are being discussed in Washington right now but I am not at liberty to say what they are. It is possible they could be imposed before the end of the year."

Texas Citrus Mutual Executive Vice President Ray Prewett, who also testified at the hearing, said Rio Grande Valley farmers had learned from experience to take Ramirez’s comments with "a pinch of salt."

Harlingen Irrigation District General Manager Wayne Halbert agreed and said Ramirez was not routinely "kept in the loop" by the State Department on water treaty negotiations.

"We have not heard that a decision has yet been made. If Carlos Ramirez knows about it then the whole world would know about it," Halbert said.

Ramirez, a former El Paso mayor who was appointed to the IBWC last year by President Bush, said additional negotiations would take place later this month to "again urge Mexico to commit to a water delivery plan for the coming season."

Those negotiations are expected to be headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell at a binational meeting with Mexico’s Foreign Relations Secretary Jorge Castaneda and other cabinet members in Mexico City on Nov. 25-26.

Tony Garza, the United States’ newly appointed ambassador to Mexico, is expected to attend the meetings. Lucio, D-Brownsville, called Garza’s appointment the "biggest victory" Valley farmers had so far in the long-running dispute.

Under a 1944 treaty, Mexico is required to deliver an average of 350,000 acre-feet of water per year to the United States, mostly from the Rio Conchos Basin in Chihuahua. In return, the United States must deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year to Mexico from the Colorado River.

While the United States has complied with the treaty, Mexico, claiming extraordinary drought, has been falling increasingly behind in its repayments since 1992. Mexico knows the United States more than 1.5 million acre-feet of water.

Prewett, a founder member of Texans for Treaty Compliance, said state officials expect Mexico to make internal water allocation decisions for the coming year "any day now." He said that if there is no consideration of honoring the 1944 treaty, there would be no water left to allocate to the United States.

"The next few weeks could be the most critical on this issue that we have seen in the last ten years," Prewett added.

Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs unveiled a map at the hearing showing rich, green, irrigated land in the Delicias district of Chihuahua. Combs said Mexico now has almost three million acre-feet of water in storage in Chihuahua, twice as much as the United States has in its two international dams, Amistad and Falcon.

Combs said she was appalled to learn that Mexico had sought funding from the North American Development Bank to build two-foot high "lips" on Chihuahua reservoirs to hold additional water. Improved storage capacity in the state had led to "explosive growth" in Chihuahua agricultural production, Combs said.

"What has been particularly galling is the fruit and vegetables coming in from the Delicias district, coming in over the backs of our farmers," Combs said. "To think we have that stuff coming into our H-E-Bs, Fiesta, and other supermarkets is very painful," Combs said after the meeting.

Combs again called on the United States government to look at blocking Colorado River water from reaching Mexico and restricting beef imports from Mexico.

Jo Jo White, general manager of Mercedes Irrigation District, gave the most impassioned speech of the day, berating President Bush and Gov. Rick Perry for "paying lip service" to the needs of Texas agriculture.

In his written testimony, White questioned whether Washington’s refusal to address the treaty violation was due to the fact that South Texas overwhelmingly elects Democrats.

"South Texas is still part of the United States and deserves the same protection that any other region in the United States is afforded. Lack in obtaining this legal treaty protection will further lead to the demise of the region," White said.

Gordon Hill, general manager of Bayview Irrigation District agreed, claiming Mexico was using "economic and political warfare" against the United States.

Newly elected Attorney General Greg Abbott said he would use "any and all legal tools... to get the water we deserve."

Jeff Boyd, the attorney general’s deputy director of litigation, told the hearing the state would face "very significant legal obstacles" in suing Mexico, Chihuahua or the United States over the treaty.

Lucio said the committee heard "excellent testimony" on the best route for pressuring Mexico into repaying the 1.5 million acre-feet of water debt.

"However, I intend to continue exploring any legal avenues available to us," Lucio said.

[madfly]

fyi

[norton]

Since the subject seems already to have come up..."... rich, green, irrigated land in the Delicias district of Chihuahua."

Maybe it'd help them if we pointed out that we have a whole pot-load of potential lettuce pickers here in California, they already speak mexican and claim to work real cheap!

[MissAmericanPie]

Thirty thousand Texas farmers facing ruin and you don't hear a thing about it in the press, especially the local press.

[madfly]

ping

[Free the USA]

bump

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[B4Ranch]

I've been doing a lot of thinking about illegal aliens and the politicians whining about not having enough money, wanting to raise our taxes as a solution to the budget problems.


This just might be a solution. See if you like it.


Educate a couple of hundred young energetic people who feel American Patriotism is a finer character asset than Diversity is to an idea like this one. Then these people would need to go face to face with the residents of a small populated rural county and explain how it would work and benefit their them, their kids, and their grandkids.


Get the county population educated to the idea of electing a Sheriff who will go face to face with the Federal government. He is going to need legal advice on how to do all of this. Ideally we would want local attorneys or judges to provide this advice. Hey, before you run off...they have kids and grandkids too.


Get the Sheriff and County officials to go along with it is another subject. Just maybe you might be able to find someone who thinks as I do, that illegal aliens are parasites in America, and they could spread the idea amongst the citizens of the County. Then the citizens could write a petition to force the Council and Sheriff to follow their instructions. If we could get the Sheriff and local County officials of a lesser populated County with a budget deficit and normal high taxes to declare that all illegal aliens from every nation will be arrested and removed from the County in 30 or 60 days.


All assets not removed from the County must be assigned by the illegal alien to be sold with registered agents or they will be seized by the Sheriff and sold. These funds will be divided between the Sheriffs Office and the County budget official for expenses.


All people employing illegal aliens will also be arrested and fined. Perhaps $5000 per employee. This would prompt employers to demand that their employees bring in birth certificates, etc. This keeps the government out of our personal records any more than necessary.


The hiring of non citizens that have entered the US legally with the assistance of Immigration and Naturalization Services will of course be encouraged. Only the hiring of illegal aliens will be reason for arrest and stiff fines.


Perhaps ads could be placed in the newspapers of the surrounding counties to obtain legal workers for the farm, ranch, gas station local K-Mart to replace the ones who are leaving. A local 800 number could be updated daily with jobs available in the County.


All people giving aid or care to illegal aliens will also be arrested and fined. This would include illegal aliens who are family members.


This will result in no or very few illegal aliens going to the local hospitals for medical attention. The hospital will start making money instead of heading into bankruptcy.


This will bring welfare for illegal aliens to a screeching halt. This alone will do much for the local budget.


School districts would require much less money because the new residents in the county would certainly be more able to speak English.

Imagine what that would do to surrounding Counties with a similar budget deficit. Do you think it might prompt them to do a similar actions? Do you think it might convince the State officials when enough Counties have adopted these measures that we citizens are serious in our desire to protect our communities from being over run by illegal aliens?

I think half a dozen community residents that are involved in the legal system and the business community could work out what to do to make an idea similar to this work in their community.

---

For the legal minded folks I have included a statement from one of the cases that made it through the Supreme Court. Unless there are State laws forbidding such actions as I have suggested, I think everything legally is above the table. A local judge could give the Sheriff advice on how to handle the little tweak of the laws.


The federal Gov't may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command State' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.


Justice Antonin Scalia, Mack vs US., June 27, 1997

---

The way I see it is that given the opportunity and enough notice to move their families safely, the illegal aliens would pack up and leave rather than fight a Sheriff who is broadcasting that just because the Feds aren't going to enforce the immigration laws doesn't mean he isn't.


Employers would rather make a company policy that all employees must prove that they are American citizens or in the United States legally than be fined $5000 for supporting open border policy. Give employers a chance to advertise for critical employees who are currently illegal aliens so their businesses don't suffer a drastic skill shortage.


Just as an add on, I imagine that the local crime rates would be continually dropping until it reached an acceptable level.


Surrounding rural counties would surely catch on quickly to the benefits and start similar programs. All it would take is one newspaper article about the city council needing money for some public service. There is much more rural county land in the US than cities in county land.


I imagine that it wouldn't take too long before cities would simply not be able to afford to support all the illegals who are on taxpayer paid benefits. Consequently, like it or not they would have to fall in line.

I have no idea how fast an idea such as this would spread and actually take firm hold causing neighboring state legislators to look at the idea BEFORE their state was swamped with illegal aliens and the taxpayers rose up demanding immediate solutions. The crime rate amongst illegals is very high as it is. A plan such a this could send it through the ceiling.


This would be dangerous because it would foster hate and anger. Too much of that would result in radicals bringing out their guns chasing the illegals out of their neighborhoods. We have seen gang wars and the resulting violence, this would be worse. So, it would have to be a slow, calm, well organized plan in each county! Our intention is to bring the population of our neighborhoods into patriotic, law abiding folks not to be ravaged by foreigners who have nowhere to go. So eventually, I can see where states would have to cough up the funds and or transportation for the people to get back to Norway, Brazil, Australia, Japan and China.


If we tried to let the Feds handle it, they would fiddle fart around like they been doing and the problem would never be solved. So, the way I see this, the STATES are going to have to stand up after too many years on our knees to the self determined big shots in the Federal Legislative and the Federal Agencies. We need to show them that we'll fix the problem ourselves.


The first States to do this emigration plan will encounter the least expenses. Of course I would expect it to happen, if it ever does, in Western States.



Notice the direction of travel in this definition.


emigration


Em`i*gra"tion, n. [L. emigratio: cf. F. ['e]migration.] 1. The act of emigrating; removal from one country or state to another, for the purpose of residence, as from Europe to America, or, in America, from the Atlantic States to the Western.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=emigration&db=*


Lets change the worlds idea of where to emigrate from and to! We have given education and work experience to millions of illegal aliens. Now lets give them a chance to see if they can do it for themselves back home!!!


If you think this might work......ping some FR friends to see what they think of it.

Why not email friends with this idea and see if we can't get it started. Of course there will surely need to be modifications to initialize it and perhaps different ideas to promote it. Each County is slightly different and we don't want extreme radicals promoting it or else it will surely sink into oblivion.

[B4Ranch]

"South Texas is still part of the United States and deserves the same protection that any other region in the United States is afforded. Lack in obtaining this legal treaty protection will further lead to the demise of the region," White said.

I wonder if the folks in Washington are concerned about this? Probably not, with the war plans and still partying from the big win this is just one of those things they hope will go away on it's own.

[madfly]

Good idea. Don't know if it is feasible? We are in different states.

Educate a couple of hundred young energetic people who feel American Patriotism is a finer character asset than Diversity is to an idea like this one. Then these people would need to go face to face with the residents of a small populated rural county and explain how it would work and benefit their them, their kids, and their grandkids.

Right off the bat, I think this project would require the help of the homeschooling community. The young people on College Campuses are deluded by liberal diversity and PC-madness.

[madfly]

I saw your first draft of this on another thread.

BTW this is a Mexican irrigation thread, not Mexican Immigration. I switched topics because this is not being addressed in the media.

[Ben Ficklin]

Allow me to make some corrections to the article: Texas is entitled to 1/3 of the flow of the Rio Conchos, or a minimum of 350,000 acre feet/year. The treaty covers flows of the Rio Conchos mainstem only, not the tributaries. This has been Chihuahua's defense. They are saying that the waters accumulated there are from the tribs.

Mexico wante to renegotiate both the 1906 and 1944 treaties. They also want to renegotiate the minute agreements of the 1944 treaty that Presidente Salinas signed in contemplation of getting NAFTA thru the US Congress. The US should stay away from renegotiating because both treaties heavily favor the US.

[nanny]

I think you have a crackerjack idea there.

There have got to be many ways, large and small, this could be accomplished. We could do what you suggested - although Ibelieve that then the federal and state governments would decide they could use the military or national guard against us. That is something we would have to know is in the realm of possibility.

I think just a good old fashioned boycott of one industry at a time that is heavy into illegals. Just stop buying one particular product - lettuce or produce unless you know where and how it is produced. Do you know you can live without fresh produce? We did when I was young, in the winter. You can live without eating chicken (now much healthier), etc. I think if we chose one industry at a time, let others know it would be their turn next, it might work.

Now it would have to be coupled with your idea also - except as I said, be prepared for government intervention. Whether we like to admit it or not, our state governments, in some instances, are just extensions of the federal government.

Isn't it illegal to employ illegals? I thought it was. IF so, why don't we also begin reporting all these people. If the INS or whatever agency is involved got thousands and thousands of tips.

Also, how about reporting some of these people to the IRS. I mean the actual employees. You know most don't pay taxes. This would have to be someone who could get to know these people - but that's not too hard to to in a small town. Just report them to the IRS. Probably nothing will be done, as I am assuming the IRS is protecting them - but what if someone was done.

Do you remember when the state of Texas was considering suing the federal government because of the increased cost of educating the illegals in border schools? What ever happened to that? I think that is when Texas passed the Robin Hood bill.

I actually think, however, the amnesty bill is going to be pushed through congress so fast you better not blink because I think President Bush knows the people are fed up and the elections are over and he can do what he likes. People have short memories and they will forget by 2004.

Great idea and well conceived.

Don't you live in Texas? What part? Just generally speaking--

[B4Ranch]

The US should stay away from renegotiating because both treaties heavily favor the US.

How long will it be before the UN decides that any treaty that strongly favor a 'powerful country' is illegal?

[madfly]

ping

[Ben Ficklin]

New Mexico would like to renegotiate with Texas on both the Rio Grande and the Pecos. Texas did to New Mexico what the US did to Mexico.

[B4Ranch]

We could do what you suggested - although Ibelieve that then the federal and state governments would decide they could use the military or national guard against us. That is something we would have to know is in the realm of possibility.

The sheriff in every county is the top LEO. The feds cannot tell him what to do regarding what laws to enforce or not enforce, that is up to the citizens. The feds that work in "his" county get their concealed weapons permits from the sheriff. He can revoke them in a heartbeat.

I owned a ranch in Lamar County then sold out and moved to Nevada to be closer to the kids.

[B4Ranch]

Kids who are unemployed because illegals have "their" jobs would be interested in a program like this. A lot of the "starting jobs" are snatched by illegals before our kids get a chance at them.

[ZULU]

Remember the Alamo!!!

Vincente Fox is no friend of America and his army of invaders and fifth columnists are flooding the west.

America is under siege in the southwest and northeast.

[cake_crumb]

"Thursday that he was not at liberty to discuss the State Department’s "plans," but did testify on halting the delivery of water to Mexico from the Colorado River."

Good idea. Sounds like a plan. Fox is too full of himself. He seems to think the US needs him more than he needs the US...when the truth is that it's the other way around. In addition to halting water delivery, the US ought to hand out severe financial penalties for American companies that relocate to Mexico.