Replies

"You think the money should all be sent back, what about the infrastructure here? They use water,roads,hospitals, librarys, government services, yet you think they should not pay for those, instead the American taxpayer must pick up the tab so they can send their money out of country?"

Well, assuming you have a job, you're paying taxes for our infrastructure. But with the money left over, you can do what you damn well please, including buying a German car and a Swiss watch and a Japanese TV and Australian wine and a South African diamond. Guest workers would pay taxes, same as Americans. What they do with their leftover money is up to them, and if they can send it back to their family in their home country if will mean that their whole family won't have to move to the U.S., where the children would go to school at our expense and where any new children born would be U.S. citizens. So letting them send money back is a good solution for both the guest worker and the American people.

"Also, unless you think its fine for the treasury department to keep printing an endless flow of money, the number of dollars available in the US becomes fewer and fewer, while the number of dollars out of country greater. Now it used to be governments like to controll the amount of dollars floating around in foreign countries, but now they can't because remittances are an unregulated outflow of money. This seems to be fiscally irresponsible of our government to allow this as well."

That is just absurd. The huge majority of U.S. dollars circulating in the world market are due to Americans buying imported products---or do you want to ban that too? We are part of a global economy, you know.

"I don't think Mr. Goldwater would ever have approved the unfettered flow of illegals into our country"

And neither do I. Reread my posts.

According to a document issued in November of 2001 by CONAPO, the Mexican National Population Council, even with a decrease in the birth rate and an improved Mexican economy, emigration to the U.S. will not diminish for at least the next 30 years! CONAPO called this emigration “inevitable.” Of course what CONAPO really means by "inevitable" is that it doesn't want it stopped.

The Mexican central bank recently reported that income from remittances from Mexican migrants in the U.S. now tops that of every other sector other than petroleum. Migration, in other words, earns more for Mexico than tourism, more than manufacturing, more than mining, more than agriculture, more than direct foreign investment in Mexico.

In just the first 6 months of 2003, recorded earnings from remittances totaled $6.3 billion (Petroleum – over $8 billion, direct foreign investment – $5.2 billion, Tourism – $4.9 billion). [Mexican Central Bank: Money Sent Home By Migrants Tops Foreign Investment, Tourism by Mark Stevenson, Associated Press, August 29th, 2003]

Mexico has great economic potential. It’s a tourist bonanza with some of the world’s finest beaches, colonial architecture, pre-Hispanic archaeology, and more. Mexico has mineral wealth – for example, it’s the world’s number one in silver reserves - a large industrial sector, a highly-educated upper class and a small but growing high-tech industry. Mexican agriculture is blessed with a wide variety of ecosystems and long growing seasons.

Yet, except for petroleum, not one of these sources of wealth production can surpass the value of remittances from migrants in the U.S.!

This is a stunning indictment. How could a modern nation-state allow itself to get into such a predicament?

This incredible failure should be a first-class embarrassment for Mexico’s ruling class. Instead, it's being utilized for political gain. The power of migrant remittances in the economy is yet another built-in disincentive to reform Mexico’s economy.

Where does remittance money go? It goes to buy groceries, consumer goods and into home improvement. In some cases it encourages its recipients not to take up productive work in Mexico. Very little of remittance funds are channeled into savings or productive investment in Mexico. Once again, no incentive for emigration reduction.

Indeed, Mexico is losing its attraction for foreign investment due in part to its government’s ongoing failure to enact reform in the fiscal and energy sectors [México pierde su atractiva, Romina Róman, Universal, September 11th, 2003]. Why should it, with that emigration safety valve? --Allan Wall

It really looks like Mexico is calling the shots on American immigration policy and Bush's plan reflects more what the Mexican government wants than the American people

**

Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, who recently declared that Mexico would give the U.S. nothing in exchange for a migratory accord, laid out the goals of Mexican foreign policy in a recent Reforma article. Generally, these goals are what you would expect given the globalist principles outlined in Vicente Fox’s Madrid speech. But of special interest to the U.S. National Question is one item that Foreign Minister Derbez describes thusly:

“Through our network of 45 consulates, we reinforce attention to the needs of our fellow Mexicans in the United States regardless of their legal or migratory status…We seek with our northern neighbor the negotiation of a total migratory package which includes (a) the regularization of undocumented [a.k.a. illegal] Mexicans resident in that country, (b) border security, (c)an increase in the number of visas for temporary workers and (d) regional economic development.

“Besides seeking a total migratory package defined above, with the goal of improving living conditions of our fellow Mexicans, we have issued in the past year 1, 130,000 matriculas consulares. [They are] accepted in 280 banking institutions and in 32 states of that country [the U.S.] The [U.S.] Department of the Treasury announced yesterday that it permits the use of the matricula by commercial banking. This will doubtless increase its acceptance, to the benefit of all Mexicans.

“In April we established the Institute of Mexicans Abroad, whose Consultative Council is composed of 100 consultants, elected directly by the Mexican Communities, which institutionalizes the relationship between Mexico and the communities abroad.” [Estrategias de la Nueva Política Exterior de México, Luis Ernesto Derbez, Reforma, September 19th, 2003]

Notice that, as usual, the Mexican foreign ministry is closely monitoring the matricula consular situation, pushing for a migratory accord, and utilizing Mexican consulates as operational bases for the continuing colonization of the United States.

Americans need to understand that Mexico’s leaders, who head its white minority government, have no intention whatsoever of reducing emigration. Why should they? Emigration keeps them in power. It removes a portion of Mexico’s poor, reducing demographic pressure on the government. And, as recent Mexican administrations have learned, it gives Mexico an opportunity to exert influence over U.S. immigration policy, which enables the cycle to continue.

In Mexico’s fractious political world, “defending the immigrants” is one issue which draws support across the political spectrum. All political parties and centers of influence support the continued promotion of emigration and the concomitant subversion of American law and sovereignty.

--Alan Wall