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.
How does this differ from the Bush position?
g in AZ
I'm laughing so hard I'm in tears here. We can't seal our Southern border with Mexico unless we build a version of the Great Wall, and even THAT won't stop people from bailing over somehow. It's ABOUT TIME we got SOMETHING out of Mexico besides illegals and empty rhetoric.
Fox, the Saddam mini-me, is scared.
They have. Hundreds of thousands have immigrated here from Eastern Europe and Russia in the last decade. The problem is illegal immigration, if they would cut it off it would slow the Aztlan train down considerably.
Personally, I'd like to see a break in ALL immigration for a while, we've taken in over 35 million in the last 40 years, enough is enough.
What is the "Bush position," and link to a delineation of it.
Chris Smith of NJ is a mass-immigrationist Republican as this article says, and he is largely responsible for the increase in East European immigration, which is fine in moderation. We're already taking in a million a year, how much more do you want to increase it to? By saying it's impossible to stop illegal immigration and deport the illegals so let's just balance the Aztlan train with other immigrants is not feasible in my opinion. We can't take in the world.
At some point, maybe when enough Americans shout from the rooftops the Republicans will finally grow a spine, close the border and start deporting illegals. It can be done, it was before in the fifties. The taxpayer can only build so many schools, so many hospitals, and so many prisons.
Not if we go to a mandatory 70 hour work week. Now, get back to work, slacker. :)
What was Bush's amnesty proposal in August of 2001?
Even back then, some of us asked for documentation of what Bush's policy was, and we got nothing but unsubstantiated leaks with no names attached.
There may have been a "trial balloon", but there has never been an official Bush policy to grant amnesty to anybody.
There wasn't going to be an amnesty then, and there's not going to be an amnesty now.
What is insane and out of control Mr. Reyes, is our government turning a blind eye to the FIVE MILLION illegals living in our country. If we were truly bullies, we'd deport them all, tomorrow!
Actually I'm talking about all immigrants, 1 million a year. What do you want to do, lower immigration from other countries while increasing East European immigration, or add to the 1 million total we're already taking in annually?
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.