Posted on 11/22/2002 1:49:21 PM PST by madfly
WASHINGTON (AP)--After a 14-month impasse, U.S. and Mexican officials will see if they can establish common ground on ways to revamp laws governing Mexican migration to the United States.
Migration issues is one of the topics Secretary of State Colin Powell and five other senior Bush administration officials will deal with Monday and Tuesday during talks in Mexico City.
Powell and his colleagues will be looking for progress in persuading Mexico to repay a huge water debt based on a 1944 treaty. Mexico's inability to pay the debt has angered many Texas ranchers.
A major concern for Mexico is the elimination, on Jan. 1, of tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico, a step provided for in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Mexico complains that U.S. government subsidies will give U.S. farmers an unfair advantage over their Mexican counterparts, possibly driving them out of business and perhaps inducing them to sneak across the border.
The new U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Tony Garza, told Mexican reporters last week that the United States is considering giving legalized residency--but not citizenship--to about 15 percent of undocumented workers, and may increase the number of temporary work visas.
But a State Department official, briefing reporters on Powell's visit, said Thursday he was unaware of the proposal, allowing that perhaps the ambassador knows something the State Department is unaware of.
The official, asking not to be identified, said it does not make sense to offer proposals to Mexico on migration that may not have a chance of receiving approval by Congress.
President Vicente Fox put migration reform at the top of his cross-border agenda after taking office two years ago. President Bush seemed receptive but, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Mexico was informed that border security would displace migration reform as the top U.S. priority in relations with Mexico.
Recently, U.S. threats to attack Iraq have alarmed an instinctively isolationist Mexican public. Fox and his aides have urged the United States to take no action without approval from the U.N. Security Council, of which Mexico is a nonpermanent member. Mexico's lack of enthusiasm for the Iraqi intervention has clearly irritated U.S. officials.
The senior U.S. official said Powell looks forward to discussing with Mexican Foreign Secretary Jorge Castaneda ideas to make progress on migration.
It's estimated there are as many as 5 million undocumented Mexican aliens living in the United States. Fox believes they deserve legal status in the United States because of the contributions they make to the American economy and says the United States should show more flexibility on the issue.
Accompanying Powell on the trip will be Attorney General John Ashcroft, Education Secretary Rod Paige, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, Interior Secretary Gail Norton, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman and other officials.
Mexico and the United States have held Cabinet-level consultations virtually on an annual basis since 1981.
But a State Department official, briefing reporters on Powell's visit, said Thursday he was unaware of the proposal, allowing that perhaps the ambassador knows something the State Department is unaware of.
The official, asking not to be identified, said it does not make sense to offer proposals to Mexico on migration that may not have a chance of receiving approval by Congress.
STEIN REPORT XXXXX Friday, November 22 2002 14:47:34 ET XXXXX
GARZA'S AMNESTY PLAN - TRIAL BALLOON OR FALSE PROMISE?
Did Tony Garza, the new ambassador to Mexico, let the cat out of the bag regarding the Bush administration's amnesty plans? Was Garza's announcement over the weekend in an interview with a Mexican newspaper that the amnesty would cover roughly 15 percent of the illegal alien population a trial balloon? Or did Garza simply overpromise in an attempt to placate Mexican critics of Vicente Fox who point to the lack of an amnesty/guestworker program? These questions arise as a result of a blanket denial by a State Department that Garza's remarks reflect official policy. "A State Department official said Thursday he was unaware of that plan, though he said the ambassador might know something the State Department did not - an indication that, in the best of cases, Garza and his supervisors are not yet on the same page," is how the AP terms Garza's trip off the reservation. "The official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, was briefing reporters about Secretary of State Colin Powell's upcoming visit to Mexico. The official also said it did not make sense to make proposals to Mexico on migration that may not have a chance of approval by Congress. Garza's reported statements were more detailed and definite than earlier administration proposals."
I personally think that Americans will go nuts if Bush starts this nonsense again with Mexico... the border is wide open and the U.S. is as vulnerable to attack now as it was during Clinton's two sorry stints, vigilante groups are forming, jobs are being lost left and right, and the economy is in the tank. We don't need more of those sponges up here.
That's what Vicente says.
Listen, the military should have been on the borders within hours of the attacks in 2001. The onslaught continues unabated. Been to Cochise County lately? Tancredo has. I have as well.
I'd far prefer to see Bush- or a replacement, if he won't do it- rebuild the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs and have them securing our borders, as they did reasonably sucessfully for decades. That leaves the military as a back-up force for any problems beyond those that a law enforcement agency can best deal with, or if they prove incapable of getting the job done.
If Bush can pull that off with his reorganization of Customs/Border Patrol/INS into the *Homeland Security* agency umbrella, more power too him, and it's not his fault that the Democrats have and are still stonewalling those plans.
But if he doesn't get the job done, and soon, he can look to his illegal immigrant pals for votes for his reelection, 'cause he sure won't be getting one from me. And if the result is a rerun of what happened to dent his father his second term in office, fine.
-archy-/-
Who are you kidding?
Our "open borders" policy has already given us 9/11.
As you've only signed up 4 days ago, maybe you can fill us in on where you've looked for your empirical data up until now.
Why should anyone accept your assurance that anything's going to go well regarding illegal immigration? Empirical: 1. Based on Observation and Experiment, based on or characterized by observation and experiment rather than theory.
There are a couple of INS/Border Patrol Agents that post here. They have observed the number of illegals that get away versus the number they catch. There's your 'Based on Observation' qualifier.
Pay a visit to Marine Inspector's Home Page and let us know, if the official INS numbers and the observations of agents in the field are empirical enough for you.
Oh, and turn the volume up when you enter MI's webpage.
Oh, mr. wizard, what's up with this. This statement reveals you as some kind of racist, white supremacist and hateful sort of guy. If you are trying to make friends here, you have been misinformed about us. We are not anti-immigration, we are against illegal immigration. Many of us, including myself, have parents that came over on the boat or who came from Mexico the legal way. We do not share your loathing or repulsion of nations other than ours.
Want to know if Washington really is "your" government? Ask yourself the above two questions!
Migration issues - does that have anything to do with illegal immigration, or does it demand amnesty? Demanding amnesty seems to be their ONLY ISSUE.
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.