Oil for Illegals? Mexico, and the Democrats, have a fit over House vote

National Review ^ | May 14, 2003 | Mark Krikorian

[madfly]

May 14, 2003, 9:30 a.m.
Oil for Illegals?
Mexico, and the Democrats, have a fit over House vote.

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.

[FITZ]

I think we have enough people --- however we do immigration we need to make sure they're only coming for jobs that we actually need them for --- there's a lot of Americans out of work, our inner cities are a mess and we need jobs if we ever want them employed. Too many jobs are leaving the US for us to be worrying about bringing in a bunch of people in ---no matter who they are.

[kstewskis]

Well, Armenians are a very peculiar group. I know Armenians vote heavily democratic, however they are not all swindling Medicare. Most Armenians work hard and obey the laws.

Nor did I say they were "all" swindling Medicare; however a significantly large amount of the Medicare fraud (that are caught) occurring in the immediate area (Glendale/Burbank/Hollywood) are from Armenian medical groups. It's been growing steadily in the particular area over the last 10-15 years (expectedly, that goes with the population increase).

Generally speaking, educated immigrants are a huge plus for the US, while poorly educated immigrants are big negative.

That I believe we can all agree on.

[Black Agnes]

Ping in case you missed it.

[dennisw]

I agree but on general principles we should have more Europen immigration as long as we're going to have immigration. There are millions of worthy East Europeans who would love to immigrate.

[PRND21]

Good post, Sabertooth.

[PRND21]

I was trying to be nice to you

Really?. That opening lie must have caused me to miss your niceness.

...why don't you answer that question, maybe we can all learn something from you.

Now you want me to explain why your flawed ideas suck?

Pass.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Now you want me to explain why your flawed ideas suck?

I'd explain it to you, but you're too young to understand. When you get a little older come back and we'll talk.

[FITZ]

Have them wait until unemployment figures get better ---and tell them to be sure and have their own health insurance policies when they get here ---we've got way too many uninsured now ---in this city only 32% bother with private insurance, about 33% have Medicare or Medicaid and the rest just figure they'll get someone else to pay ---it's bad when the welfare classes outnumber the working class.

[PRND21]

Re-read your posts, boy. You're still pouting.
Bug off, please.

[liberalnot]

on the surface, i'd agree with you.

but thinking a moment about it, do you really expect that the folks in south central (excuse me, south) los angeles etc are going to flip burgers? not.

it's not going to happen.

there are some black kids working in los angeles area restaurants, as well as white, but predominately mexicans out number everyone.

today, i had lunch in temecula at a carl's jr. i noticed a sign on the wall advertising for help:

> general mgr., $30-45,000 / yr.
> restaurant mgr., $28-35,000 / yr.
> shift leader, $8-10.75 / hr.
> crew, $6.75-8.50 / hr.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Buzz off, you're a pest.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

> general mgr., $30-45,000 / yr.

Is the cost of living really high in LA? That salary for a general manager is far above the starting rate on the east coast, at least my area. That's actually not a bad salary.

[Fraulein]

How are we fighting a war on terrorism while maintaining open porous borders?

We can pass the Patriot Act -- and fight a war against Iraq -- and yet all the while the government allows our borders to virtually remain open?

[liberalnot]

yes,

!!!

you could say houses are expensive here.

[FITZ]

It's very likely they won't even hire American kids in some of those places because they can't speak Spanish ---and in some areas that is number one requirement. Kids here ---hispanic and non-hispanic complain they are told they don't speak Spanish well enough by employers.

[FITZ]

Those are pretty good wages for a restaurant ---around here the wages are quite a bit lower ---but how can those workers afford homes in California? Or do many live in subsidized housing?

[liberalnot]

that's right!

and, then, considering that you can not get a room to share in a house for less than $500.00 in san diego county, or a one bedroom for less than $900.00, and orange and los angeles counties cost more,

...

your likely candidate for a crew job will be a mexican who lives at home or with another family.

$6.75 / hr = $13,500.00 before taxes.

[liberalnot]

i know several adult children of mexican illegals who now manage fast food restaurants in san diego and riverside counties. they are all married, and the spouses work, and thus, they can afford houses. one woman from the yucatan area of mexico told me that she makes $35 and her husband, $48. out of this they send money to their parents, and they bought a house. but they drive older cars.

i doubt that you could afford a house here on one salary. the lowest new priced homes in riverside county are $200,000+, and that gets you a long, long commute. most of riverside county is hot, varying from low desert or high desert summer temps well above 100 degrees.

san diego housing prices are out of control. and orange and los angeles counties are even more.

i'd guess the metro average home goes for $300-350,000. any coastal, safe, property will cost large bucks.

prices are, of course, less in the barrios or ghettos.

i noticed in last sunday's los angeles times that desert hot springs, across from palm springs, you could get a house for $91,000. and that's a drug-infested, crime-infested desert town.

the area around riverside-temecula boasts the meth amphetamine suppliers for the united states. high crime. people that live in riverside-temecula commute either to san diego, orange, or los angeles counties mostly.

[FITZ]

san diego housing prices are out of control. and orange and los angeles counties are even more.

I guess the illegals there aren't doing much to keep housing prices down like some people claim they do. Where are all those affordable homes they build? Can't you get your illegals to work for $5 an hour in home construction? Geez ---you might as well use American labor like they do in some areas of the country where nice homes can be bought for $80,000.

[liberalnot]

partially this owes to the limited amount of coastal land, partially to environmentalists who even save a species of flies here (believe it or not!) around corona, ca., and partially to the democrats who control the cities and counties and state with draconian laws. you would need a lawyer to push through a new development and that can take 5 years, i'm told.

so, people are building out into the mountains north of los angeles, it snows up there. and people are building in the deserts. the low deserts of the coachella valley, and the high deserts of the mohave.

most of the prime coastal land is gone, or off limits.

stay tuned.