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.
You bet he would. He'd accomplish overnight what Bush is trying to do in baby steps.
As a previous poster mentioned, this looks like a WH Trial Balloon. Given the Bush Family ties to a number of powerful Mexican Families and their oil interests I am not surprised either.
Yeah and then we'd be having to look for new homes in other countries, find ourselves locked up with 60 other people in some trailer headed out of the country.
Make that 48, NY is illegal immigrant country too. It's billions of dollars in debt, but not one dime is being proposed to cut from all the free shtuff illegals get. Instead it's either raise our taxes or cut services to citizens.
True enough. My own Rep has really turned around on immigration and has pleasantly surprised me on a number of related issues. Letting your representatives know where you stand on the issues is essential in influencing change. If they get little input from their constituents their tendency is to follow whatever the party leadership says.
California's economic problems are caused by liberal politics.
Most of what you say is true. It is not unsafe to go to the mall and crime is not out of control. Armenians have arrived in great numbers around Glendale and Hollywood. An Armenian I work with says 90% will return home when democracy takes root. This same co-worker is also familar with various welfare scams and smokes under the counter Armenian cigs with no tax stamp. His Mother-In-Law, a New Yorker, is currently trying to get legal via political asylum.
0 for 4...and two were the same.
They were brought here and watched while they picked crops as your Grandpappy fought in WWII.
Your point is irrelevant.
And so are you, so why don't you take your useless insults and soundbites somewhere else, unless you have something past the kindergarten stage to say.
Ridiculous.
The Armenians around here are more liberal than the Mexicans.
btw, Armenia is not Asian.
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.