« Dear Mrs. Fairfax . . . | Main | Moonbats and the War on Terror »
May 23, 2006
What's good for the goose
As Pres. Bush and the Senate rush to reward illegal aliens, the AP carries this story.
MEXICO CITY - If Arnold Schwarzenegger had migrated to Mexico instead of the United States, he couldn't be a governor. If Argentina native Sergio Villanueva, firefighter hero of the Sept. 11 attacks, had moved to Tecate instead of New York, he wouldn't have been allowed on the force.
Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies "xenophobic," Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone born outside its territory.
In the United States, only two posts — the presidency and vice presidency — are reserved for the native born.
In Mexico, non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens.
Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans."
Recently the Mexican government has gone even further. Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges.
Interesting, isn't it? The U.S. House of Representatives talks about enforcing our borders and the Mexican government screams bloody murder. Can you imagine the uproar if we banned non-native born Americans from the job market?
The bloody nerve.
The foreign-born make up just 0.5 percent of Mexico's 105 million people, compared with about 13 percent in the United States, which has a total population of 299 million. Mexico grants citizenship to about 3,000 people a year, compared to the U.S. average of almost a half million.
J. Michael Waller, of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, was more blunt. "If American policy-makers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution," he said in a recent article on immigration.
[...]
Speaking of the hundreds of thousands of Central Americans who enter Mexico each year, chauffeur Arnulfo Hernandez, 57, said: "The ones who want to reach the United States, we should send them up there. But the ones who want to stay here, it's usually for bad reasons, because they want to steal or do drugs."
Some say progress is being made. Mexico's president no longer is required to be at least a second-generation native-born. That law was changed in 1999 to clear the way for candidates who have one foreign-born parent, like President Vicente Fox, whose mother is from Spain.
But the pace of change is slow. The state of Baja California still requires candidates for the state legislature to prove both their parents were native born.
As you mull over Mexico's anti-immigration bias, its aggressive defense of its borders, sovereignty and job market, consider these facts:
• Ten percent of Mexicans now live in the United States.
• Fifteen percent of the Mexican workforce lives in the U.S.
• One in every 7 Mexican workers "migrates" to the U.S.
• Mexicans make up 56% of what the Chronicle refers to as the "unauthorized U.S. migrant population."
• There are some Mexican communities that have almost no workers left. They've gone to the U.S.
• Mexicans in the U.S. send about $20 billion a year back to their homes in Mexico. This amount exceeds Mexico's income from all oil exports and is much higher than Mexico's revenue from tourism.
• The $20 billion that Mexicans send back home exceeds the entire foreign aid budget of the United States.
• In five Mexican states the money sent home by those who have invaded the United States exceeds total locally generated income.
Nice, huh?
And just where did I get these inflammatory numbers?
That right-wing rag, The San Francisco Chronicle.
No one has a "right" to come to the U.S., and the U.S. has no obligation to guarantee access to our job market to anyone who break our laws to get here.
Hat tip to Wild Bill for the AP story.
Posted by Mike Lief at May 23, 2006 07:53 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
For the most part, Americans are united on this issue both as a threat to national security and as an expensive social problem. I just read Jonah Goldberg who writes not of migrants but of Katrina's deadly aftermath and its effects on the Bush administration. Maybe my fanciful thesis makes absolutely no sense but I'm beginning to wonder if this is all a pre-election diversionary tactic.
The Republican party can extend aid and kindness to immigrants and the truly downtrodden. In PR terms, it's the opposite of what happened during Katrina. Although Goldberg points out that the real problem with Katrina was not the federal response but the erroneous media coverage.
---
JG: And yet, an ubiquitous media chorus claims simultaneously that Katrina was Bush’s worst hour and the press’s best. That faultless paragon of media scrupulousness Dan Rather proclaimed it one of the “quintessential great moments in television news.” Christiane Amanpour explained, “I think what’s interesting is that it took a Katrina, you know, to bring us back to where we belong. In other words, real journalists, real journalism, and I think that’s a good thing.”
But in the race to prove the federal response incompetent, the “real journalists” missed some important details. As Lou Dolinar exhaustively documents, the National Guard did amazing work in New Orleans. From the Superdome, the Guard managed some 2,500 troops, a dozen emergency shelters, more than 200 boats, 150 helicopters (which flew more than 10,000 sorties moving 88,181 passengers, 18,834 tons of cargo, and saved 17,411 survivors), and an enormous M*A*S*H operation that, among other things, delivered seven babies.
---
There's almost a connection between gratuitous aid for the disadvantaged now, as opposed to the poor who were ignored during the storm. Political slams and Katrina bad-mouthing are sure to be staples of the next election. Can the GOP do warm 'n fuzzy?
http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE5NQ==
Posted by: Vermont Neighbor at May 24, 2006 10:49 PM
I don't believe for a second that the GOP can win elections by trying to out-Democrat the Democrats.
The people who hold the Federal Gummint responsible for the failures of New Orleans and Lousiana authorities will never credit the GOP with caring for the poor, for doing the right thing.
I'm afraid that the immigration mess is simply the political class telling the great unwashed masses to piss off; leave the nation's bidness to the experts.
The president is acting out of principle, but he's flat out wrong on this. He's rewarding foreign nationals for violating our borders, breaking our laws, and depleting our treasury.
Warm and fuzzy?
The last thing we need is the GOP trying to kiss ass into a permanent majority.
Posted by: Mike Lief at May 25, 2006 12:08 AM
I see your points and I don't know where the GOP is headed, either. It's interesting that New Orleans has always been corrupt and mostly under one party. This recent story with the guy tantalizingly named William Jefferson is a classic clintonian situation. Agendas, lies and stealing.
Getting back to the border problem, I just had to run with the theory of a pre-election Katrina offensive strike. Hey, it could make for a good News Max column!
It also reminded me of the liberals who hate Nixon and never give credit for his progressive accomplishments, such as starting the EPA. If Bush is using some kind of principle to help foreigners break the law, you'd think liberals would throw him a few Zogby points.
Posted by: Vermont Neighbor at May 25, 2006 08:58 AM
Wow. An anti-illegal billboard campaign is rolling out across the country. Photos were posted at Drudge this morning, but replaced by the Enron verdict. It might be worth adding your signature if you support legal entry and safe borders:
National Petition and Billboard Campaign
Citizens say, "Stop The Invasion!"
The Senate will vote on its Amnesty bill before Memorial Day -- a bill that will grant amnesty to 10-20 million illegal aliens. Grassroots citizens across the nation are responding by signing Grassfire’s “Stop The Invasion” petition and sponsoring billboards across the country. Your help is needed.
Step #1 -- Sign the Petition:
First and foremost, please sign Grassfire’s “Stop The Invasion” petition and then rally your friends. Grassfire wants to present 500,000 petitions to the Senate before the Amnesty vote!
Petition Signers to date: Total signers: 422,658
http://www.grassfire.org/42/petition.asp?PID=11083542&NID=1
Posted by: Vermont Neighbor at May 25, 2006 09:07 AM