Immigration Expert Needs a Spanking...
...but I suppose a fisking will have to do.
I just read this. My comments, as always, are in red.
The United States must stop treating Mexico as an inferior country if immigration issues are to be resolved, according to a historian who spoke Monday on the Texas A&M University campus about border relations. First, we don't. Unless, of course, you think wanting American immigration policy to be crafted and enforced by, for, and in the best interests of Americans qualifies as "treating Mexico as an inferior country." And, second, if it isn't an inferior country, then why are its citizens fleeing north like rats from a sinking ship?Yes. Yes we do.
"We must work with Mexico as a partner, be respectful to Mexico and not treat them as a subordinate," said Oscar Martinez, a history professor at the University of Arizona. I have no idea what Professor Martinez is seeing, but when I watch President Bush with Vicente Fox, I get the sneaking suspicion that he values HIS input over that of the American people. "It's fundamentally essential to bring Mexico to the discussion and arrive at a balanced solution," Oscar Martinez of the University of Arizona said. Why should Mexico be brought to the discussion of U.S. immigration policy? I highly doubt that we were involved when they wrote naturalized Mexicans as second-class citizens into THEIR constitution.
The keynote speaker at the two-day immigration symposium gave the standing-room-only crowd a quick lesson on the long, often interwoven history of Mexico and the United States.
"We have denied the effects of integration. People are at the center," he said. "If you want beneficial trade and don't want the people - it just doesn't work that way. We have a special relationship with Mexico, and we don't want to accept that." Give me a break! What other country with whom we trade actively sends millions of people to feed on our economy like locusts? That is not and should not be part of a beneficial trade agreement...at least not one that's beneficial for US.
Martinez stressed that because the two countries essentially are integrated through their economies and past interactions, the two must come up with an immigration policy that can benefit both countries. Economically integrated? Let's see...we give them money directly, and indirectly through their second largest income -- remittances from millions of their citizens living and working here ILLEGALLY. Which brings us to what they give us: millions of their citizens living and working here ILLEGALLY. Integrated economy my ass.
"Bring Mexico to the table," said the Mexican-born Martinez, who first came to the United States when he was 5 years old. "Consider trends in Mexico and the interrelationships between the two countries. It's fundamentally essential to bring Mexico the discussion and arrive at a balanced solution." Mexico is already at the table. Our table. And they're enjoying the feast. Why else would hundreds of thousands of people be taking to the streets to squawk at the first sign of a possible end (a.k.a. HR4437) to this madness?
The professor, currently working on a book exploring the question of why Mexico is poor, discussed the border debate between Mexico and the United States, which he said has been a reoccurring issue throughout history.
He said the clash can be traced back to the Mexican-American War, which realigned the border. Read: Mexico lost, we won. That war, he said, is a major factor of Mexico's poverty, which drives many of its residents to come to America. Of course, it has nothing to do with bad and corrupt governments that have worked ceaselessly ever since to run the country into the ground.
Mexico would be a much wealthier country if it had the valuable, agriculture-rich land that it lost as a result of the war, Martinez said. Perhaps. If the bad and corrupt governments hadn't screwed that up for the Mexican people, too. But you said the key word, professor: LOST.
He said U.S.-Mexican migration is punctuated by quotas, guest worker programs, mass roundups and deportations and discussed a 1986 law that gave amnesty to about 2 million undocumented workers. We have laws -- as does Mexico. They don't just let anyone wander into their country and stay, live, work, have anchor babies, chain migrate their second cousins thrice removed, take jobs from citizens, drive down wages, burden taxpayer-funded services, and take to the streets to make demand legalization, amnesty, and citizenship. WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE?
"The border issues are a long-standing point of contention between Mexico and the U.S.," Martinez said. "What we are hearing today we've heard in the past." No surprise there. Why on earth would we think they've only recently started demanding that we give, give, give while they take, take, take?
The House has passed a bill that suggests tightening border security, building a wall between the two countries, setting up guest worker programs and charging those who enter the country illegally with a felony. The Senate is considering its version of the bill. The proposals have sparked national demonstrations and protests. Yes, ILLEGAL ALIENS have taken to the streets, flying Mexican and other national flags (even American ones, when urged by organizers), demanding what they call "civil rights" -- the rights of citizens.
Martinez said not to expect a quick solution to immigration problems.
"We look at what's going on in Congress today, but this is an explosive political subject," he said. "It's going to take time to arrive at a compromise and satisfy the different groups that have a role to play in the legislature. I don't see it happening this year. It will drag on." There is one -- count 'em ONE -- group that needs to be satisfied here: the American people. Not Vicente Fox or the leader of any other country. Not the Mexican people. Not the Nigerian people. Not the Norwegian people. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. We have a role in our legislature. Not throngs of people who have already broken our laws to come, stay, and work here.
Martinez offered his own set of both short-term and long-term solutions, including legalizing long-term undocumented workers, the creation of a temporary guest worker program, providing economic assistance to Mexico, increasing legal immigration quotas and coming up with a security agreement that would not include building a wall along the border. A wall would be like a "slap in the face to Mexico," he said. And what, exactly, is the government-encouraged migration of millions of ILLEGAL aliens into the United States? A slap in the face seems mild to me, compared to the Deliverance-style treatment we're receiving from Mexico.
"We need to look at this in a broader terms," Martinez said. "I just hope the government comes up with a good, reasonable, humanitarian solution because we need that."
And the American people are still waiting.