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.

[Pubbie]

"How many do you suppose want to come here? The reason so few from Western Europe wish to immigrate to the US is because their economies are on par as ours. Soon, East Europe and Russia will be too now that they got rid of communism."

Well Eastern Europe has a LONG way to go before the living standard is close to the American living standard.

Russia has been doing economically quite well recently, BUT again, it still has a looooong way to go.

In Russia at least 30% of the population is living in poverty, and I imagine many of those people would like to come over.

For the most part, Eastern Europe is generally very poor, and there surely must be tens of millions of young people who would love to come over to the US.

[Regulator]

The reason that they're pissed is that they are used to making demands, crying "racism" and having a bunch of guilty white liberal gringos giving them whatever they want

Biiiing! You get the prize.

With Mexico, it's always been "what's ours is ours, what's yours is negotiable" -- and the latest generation of gringos laid down for that, emboldening them further.

We'll see if a little generational spine is being grown in D.C.

[kstewskis]

Just another example of an immigration policy so far out in left field...

Trust me, it's ugly. When you have a difficult time reading the signs on a building, you wonder if you still live in the US.

My poor grandma would spin in her grave if she saw what happened to her town.

[Ben Ficklin]

Pemex opens up exploration in its Burgos Field

[Pubbie]

"My issue is with the Eastern European immigration. If they come from a non communist background, fine. They are generally hard workers. I use Glendale, CA as an Armenian experiment gone horribly wrong. If they are from the communist bloc countries, they will (and have) bleed our system dry as well. Including Medicare fraud."

There is no welfare system anymore in Eastern Europe, because there is no money in any of these countries for any major welfare programs like there is in Western Europe.

As far as I can tell, Russians vote Republican, for example, the 56 ward in Philadelphia has the largest concentration of Russians in America, and that ward is the most Republican part of the city.

Russians are tied with Lithuanians as being the most educated Immigrant group in US history.

The education system in Eastern Europe is outstanding, especially in the hard sciences.

So overall, merely due to education levels, Eastern Europeans should assimilate very well into American society.

[liberallarry]

ping

[Madcelt]

Hammer...nail....BANG!!! (ya know the truth hurts! so this is painful for vince)

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Trust me, it's ugly. When you have a difficult time reading the signs on a building, you wonder if you still live in the US.

If only the media would get in the face of the politicians causing this instead of playing the racist game all the time. It's our kids future we're talking about.

[WRhine]

Mexican immigration boils down to one issue only-we need workers to support the baby-boomers medicare/ss bills-and only Mexico has the requisite number of workers-70 million under age thirty in fact.

Oh yes, by all means. Let's keep the World's Biggest Ponzi Schemes going for another generation with the hope that the Mexican Illegals will gladly part with over half their minimum wages to pay for insolvent Gringo welfare programs. LOL. (Hint: They like their current deal with us MUCH MUCH Better). Meanwhile, we hand political control of our country to that fine government in the land of vast prosperity to the South. Real Smart. /sarcasm off

[Reaganwuzthebest]

For the most part, Eastern Europe is generally very poor, and there surely must be tens of millions of young people who would love to come over to the US.

That may be true, but as I've been saying we need a time-out, at least for five years. Then maybe we can resume with an immigration policy that has some sanity attached to it. I see no problem increasing immigration from that part of the world, in moderation.

[Pubbie]

They can't sustain Social Security even if you moved every single Mexican into America because THEY HAVE NO MONEY AND THEREFORE CAN'T REALLY BE TAXED!

[kstewskis]

There is no welfare system anymore in Eastern Europe, because there is no money in any of these countries for any major welfare programs like there is in Western Europe.

That's why many come here, to use our welfare system, and commit fraud. It might be different in your area, but not in Glendale, which is a sizable city in the LA area. Note: Once upon a time, Glendale used to be a very conservative city.

As far as I can tell, Russians vote Republican, for example, the 56 ward in Philadelphia has the largest concentration of Russians in America, and that ward is the most Republican part of the city.

I don't doubt there are certain of those, like the Russians you point out, that vote Republican. That's great. Especially if their educated, that's even better. But, I'd be careful not to lump "all Russians" into that catagory.

The Armenian population (from former Soviet-bloc regions) in Glendale are a liberal based, welfare and medicare/medicaid sucking entity. They have destroyed that city.

So overall, merely due to education levels, Eastern Europeans should assimilate very well into American society.

Should, but not always. I would not make general assumptions because it's not always the case.

We need a break in immigration, period. This country is already too dense. Look at Los Angeles as a whole. Everyone from everywhere comes there, and the whole place is ready to explode. People of different ethicities are ready to kill each other out there. If there ever will be a civil war in this country, LA will be the flash point.

[Temple Owl]

John Wayne would know how to handle this problem. When he touches his sombrero Shoot!

[kstewskis]

If only the media would get in the face of the politicians causing this instead of playing the racist game all the time. It's our kids future we're talking about.

It's like no one cares. Caucasians are the minority anymore there. Those who stay, are outnumbered. Those who can, move away, preferably out of state, so their kids have a chance. The local media and polititians are to "PC" and spineless to bring anything up. They call it "diversity". LA had one, no make that two riots. We haven't seen anything yet.

[Pubbie]

Ok, but if you want to save the GOP, Eastern European Immigration is the only way to save it.

Also Armenians are not Eastern Europeans, they're Central Asians and that's a completely different region of the world.

Also keep in mind that in the former Warsaw Pact countries (Slovakia, Romania, Hungary etc), they are OVERWHELMINGLY pro-American.

[Pubbie]

California, IMO is DOOMED, however it's not too late to save the other 49 states by bringing in young, educated, pro-american Eastern Europeans... (I know you want Immigration halted completely, but Increasing Eastern Europeans would be easier for the Political elite, who makes the decisions, to do rather than spending years kicking illegals out, and building a security fence across the border)

[Reaganwuzthebest]

but Increasing Eastern Europeans would be easier for the Political elite, who makes the decisions, to do rather than spending years kicking illegals out...

It wouldn't take years to get rid of illegals, Eisenhower removed quite a few in a matter of months. When they see we mean business, many of them will leave on their own.

[kstewskis]

Also Armenians are not Eastern Europeans, they're Central Asians and that's a completely different region of the world.

Do you have any idea how many Armenians come from eastern Europe? MANY! Yes, I agree, as I said before, those people are the ones who are educated, come here and work hard.

But, we have a huge influx of them coming over from the Eastern Bloc countries as well (which is right next door). The US is not controlling that either. They are PRO-American also because they have their hand out, and our LIBERAL powers that be fill up their coffers! It's got to stop.

Again, just because they are "well educated" doesn't mean they are honest either. There is a HUGE problem with Medicare fraud (just as a small example) with many Armenian doctors practicing in the Glendale/Burbank area. Many have been reported and busted....but the FBI won't do anything unless they rip off more than 6 figures per year, and that's on the low end. Many of the individual MD's keep it around 50k-75K per year to supplement their income, and not to "cause a red flag."

There are other ways to save the GOP. Don't ask me for the answers, I don't have them. But, I invite you to visit Southern California someday, and see why it doesn't work.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The local media and polititians are to "PC" and spineless to bring anything up.

These very media people will be moving themselves after a while, kicked out by the illegal immigrant population they chose to insulate. And even as the door is slammed behind them, they'll leave preaching the same warped, ridiculous nonsense.

[Pubbie]

You could deport the illegals, however nearly all of them have young children who were born in the US, and are citizens. Since those kids (ie Anchor Babies) are citizens, you can't deport them, but if they don't go with the parents back to Mexico, the media will accuse you of breaking up Hispanic families.

Again, changing the immigration laws to drop Hispanic Immigration and raising Eastern Europeans, would be far simpler to do over the long term