May 14, 2003, 9:30 a.m.
Oil for Illegals?
Mexico, and the Democrats, have a fit over House vote.
By Mark Krikorian
Posted on 05/14/2003 3:59:29 PM PDT by madfly
|
May 14, 2003, 9:30 a.m. By Mark Krikorian |
|
Last Thursday, the House International Relations Committee narrowly passed a resolution introduced by Rep. Cass Ballenger of North Carolina (R.) requiring that any amnesty deal for the five million Mexican illegal aliens in the United States be linked to an opening of Mexico's state-controlled oil industry to investment by U.S. companies.
Then the fun started.The Mexican press exploded in outrage. "Blackmail!" cried the archbishop of Mexico City. "Stupidity!" said a representative of the oil workers' union. A plot to "annex Latin America," intoned Nobel peace-prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. An example of U.S. lawmakers' "ignorance," "arrogance," and "imperial vision," according to a Mexican senator. The head of the leftist PRD called on President Vicente Fox to "put on his pants" — act like a man — and oppose the proposal. Fox finally joined the tsunami of criticism on Sunday and categorically rejected any privatization of Pemex, Mexico's state oil monopoly.
None of this should come as a surprise. Mexico's seizure of foreign oil companies' assets in 1938 is central to modern Mexican nationalism; state control of the oil industry is actually written into the constitution. What's more, there are midterm elections for the lower house of Mexico's Congress coming up in July. Embracing privatization of Pemex would not be a vote getter, to say the least. And according to William and Mary political scientist George Grayson, author of Oil and Mexican Foreign Policy, "unless the PAN makes notable strides in these contests, the beleaguered Fox will find himself a lame duck with three years-plus remaining in his term."
But however outraged the Mexicans are, and however different these two issues are, it only seems fair to link them. After all, Mexico is asking us to start down the path of eliminating our southern border and embracing a European Union-style shared sovereignty — the least we can expect is for them also to eliminate barriers that are important to their nation.
Nor has this idea come out of the blue. In the July 30, 2001, Weekly Standard, economist Irwin Stelzer suggested just such an approach. Stelzer wrote that "monopoly oil prices" could offset a good part of the economic growth assumed in the president's tax cut and that "the finger of blame points squarely at Mexico." He wrote that we should insist that Mexico cooperate with the United States and other pro-free market countries and stop supporting the OPEC oil cartel and its leaders such as the Marxist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Stelzer said that before Bush strikes any deal on amnesty, "he should insist on the free movement of ...oil from Mexico" and the opening of Mexico's oil resources to American investment.
While Mexican opposition may be no surprise, the Democrats' furor over the oil-for-illegals approach is, given the importance of Mexico's oil to the United States and the huge costs that an illegal-alien amnesty would impose on us. After all, they have no chance whatever of getting an amnesty through Congress without some kind of sweetener, and this would seem an obvious candidate.
But it is not to be. Rep. Robert Menendez was so angry that he held a press conference last Friday denouncing the resolution. He was joined by Rep. Ciro Rodriguez and Silvestre Reyes; the latter, a past head of the Hispanic Caucus, said the amendment was an "insult" to Mexico and indicative of an "insane and outofcontrol attitude on the part of a country [the United States] that believes that as a matter of public foreign policy bullying is acceptable." It was Menendez who prompted the whole dust-up in the first place; Ballenger's amendment, to the State Department appropriations bill, was offered as a substitute to a proposal by Menendez calling for the conclusion of a "migration" accord which, among other things, "respect[ed] the human dignity of all migrants, regardless of their status" — i.e., an amnesty for illegal aliens.
The partisan nature of the vote suggests the depth of opposition in the president's own party for his preferred immigration policies. The only Republican to vote against Ballenger's oil-for-illegals linkage was Pete King (who has a career grade of F on the reformist Americans for Better Immigration website). Even such flamboyant Republican supporters of high immigration as Ileana Ros Lehtinen (career grade of F), Chris Smith (D-), and Steve Chabot (D+) voted for the linkage.
However bad the immigration positions of these Republicans, they at least understand that a massive illegal-alien amnesty must be met with some gesture from Mexico. But the Democratic-party/Mexican-government position on amnesty for illegals appears to be all quid from the United States and no quo from Mexico.
Stay tuned.
Speaking of Skunks you might want to read this from LP today. Seems that there are more than a few of them in Utah.
ps Who amnestied more Bush or Reagan(wuzthebest?)?
This. Also, pointing out untrue and illogical statements is fair game.
If one of those statements was from you, learn from it.
Nice graphic above...is that the debate portion or policy direction?
You few fellows want to have a thread to yourselves? Go elsewhere.
Very liberal of you...attack when wrong. Debate my posts or pout off line, hypocrite.
We can only hope. It happened to Spence Abraham in MI, who now works in the Bush Administration. They know how to look out for their own don't they?
I have no idea why I'm bothering, but ok, how is my point irrelevant? The illegals you refer to came on the Bracerro program and were supposed to go home. They didn't, so they became illegal aliens. Congress authorized Eisenhower to deport them, you think they should have stayed? If I recall correctly, you told me President PRND21 would enforce the law. How is that any different, or what's going on now?
I keep hearing this and from everything I've seen out of the Bush Administration regarding immigration it seems to be true. Neither of them care a whit about the sovereignty of America.
First off, crawling back after telling lies is very unseemly.
Much has changed in the last 50+ years.
Bracero was the Government ousting the workforce that THEY brought in to keep Americans fed during the war.
Today it's the citizens that utilize the labor.
No "program", no "registration". Huge numbers.
How would you coordinate a mass round-up today, Ike? And how would it effect local economies?
Hey but Spence is working hard as we speak weaning us off of foreign oil. He's probably trying to figure a way to import thousands of engineers to help him accomplish it, Americans just don't want to do that kind of work anymore.
No actually I wasn't crawling back, I was trying to be nice to you, which I can see was a waste of time. I figured you didn't have too many friends as a kid.
How would you coordinate a mass round-up today, Ike? And how would it effect local economies?
Since you told me you would enforce the law as president, why don't you answer that question, maybe we can all learn something from you.
heh heh heh. Yes, from the immigration policies of this administration and congress it would appear that they believe Americans don't want to do ANY kind of work. Too bad American Citizens can't get the same great welfare deals that the Illegals and most Green Card Holders get.
There are tons of East Europeans who would love to immigrate to the United States. I've met them and they're solid people. They are educated and English speaking. They would make great citizens. Our immigration is way too slanted to the 3rd world and away from the Europe that built the USA. This stinks.
Yes, you omitted the nexus between the local Armenians and the Russian mafia. Obviously, most Armenians are not "connected," but their community is a major gateway for this recent multicultural blight.
I know retailers who've been cold-called by Armenians wanting to "invest," that is, launder money.
I also wonder about the influx of Armenians into the banking system here. By and large, they're pleasant and competent. However, a few years ago, an Armenian teller at my bank was arrested as part of a ring of, you guessed it, Armenian Russian mafia types, who were stealing ATM PIN numbers at the teller window with a reprogrammed card scanner. The PINs were routed to a computer off-site, and then funds from compromised accounts were wire transferred to accounts elsewhere.
You're dead on regarding the Armenian youth gangs too. Combine a somewhat insular immigrant community, the multicultural ethnic pride insanity of our public schools, and the youth gangsta subculture (which always revolves around ethnicity), and you've got the only significant source of Caucasian youth gangs in L.A. County.
And they're a nice little farm team for the Russian mafia.
It's also my observation that in retail there is a different mentality that is common not only to Armenians, but other Eastern Europeans and Middle Easterners as well; there is no appreciation of developing a good relationship with a retailer. There is no sense of finesse in negotiation. In fact, the approach to haggling is frequently obnoxious and crude. I've reached the conclusion that this is a byproduct of coming from authoritarian nations with controlled economies and/or confiscatory taxes, where the black market predominates. I believe that having this mindset 24/7, always looking for some corner to cut, can be corrosive to good character.
Certainly with previous immigrant groups there has been some degree of culture clash. However, in earlier days, the American Ideal with regard to immigration was the melting pot, not multiculturalism. While the impetus to assimilate is still strong, multicultural forces like our education system and the increasing number of non-English radio and TV stations provide obstacles to assimilation that immigrants and their children didn't face in the past. When we couple that with a confiscatory state and federal tax structure, and many of the "old ways" of the black market will still seem like the right way.
I'm still a fan of liberal (small "L"), legal immigration policy, but we could certainly do a better job of it.
Ah. That wasn't a deliberate ommission, however thank you very much for bringing up that point. From talking to an occasional co-worker when I do work out there, it doesn't surprise me in the least.
I also wonder about the influx of Armenians into the banking system here. By and large, they're pleasant and competent. However, a few years ago, an Armenian teller at my bank was arrested as part of a ring of, you guessed it, Armenian Russian mafia types, who were stealing ATM PIN numbers at the teller window with a reprogrammed card scanner. The PINs were routed to a computer off-site, and then funds from compromised accounts were wire transferred to accounts elsewhere.
Thank you for relaying this info, I'll pass this along to friends/family in the area.
You're dead on regarding the Armenian youth gangs too. Combine a somewhat insular immigrant community, the multicultural ethnic pride insanity of our public schools, and the youth gangsta subculture (which always revolves around ethnicity), and you've got the only significant source of Caucasian youth gangs in L.A. County.
I was out there a few weeks ago when it was "National Memorial Rememberance Day" or something like that." I know the local high school(s) were on alert for violence. Also, I recall passing by the local "Armenian Center" on Glenoaks, all the men were gathering, dressed in black. My co worker then informed me that they have been protesting at the Weisenthal Center downtown, wondering why there was no tribute to the Armenian Holocost (along with other holocost victims) so many centuries ago.
It's also my observation that in retail there is a different mentality that is common not only to Armenians, but other Eastern Europeans and Middle Easterners as well; there is no appreciation of developing a good relationship with a retailer. There is no sense of finesse in negotiation. In fact, the approach to haggling is frequently obnoxious and crude. I've reached the conclusion that this is a byproduct of coming from authoritarian nations with controlled economies and/or confiscatory taxes, where the black market predominates. I believe that having this mindset 24/7, always looking for some corner to cut, can be corrosive to good character.
I agree 100%. What galls me the most is not only the characteristic abruptness, crassness, and rudeness (from the authoritarian countries), but their sense of "entitlement." And unwillingmess to take personal responsibility for some of their well being. I might see the same person intermittantly over the course of 2-3 years (I go out there maybe twice a year)...and they will complain of the same thing. They are usually non-complaint to whatever we suggest to help their problem, or what the MD recommends. It's a waste and a burden on the health care system, from what I can see in my little corner of the picture.
But as those on this thread (and elsewhere) are very aware of, sadly this problem is not restricted to the Armenians in Glendale.
I'm still a fan of liberal (small "L"), legal immigration policy, but we could certainly do a better job of it.
BTTT. Thanks for your informative post.
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.