Mexican Hypocrisy
Sep 5th 2003, 4:22 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mexican Hypocrisy
Shocker In Saltillo-U.S. Politician Sprouts Backbone!
By Allan Wall
Saltillo is the capital of the state of Coahuila in northern Mexico. It has
fine museums, colonial architecture and a relatively cool climate. It's
certainly worth a visit. And, before we met, my wife lived there while
obtaining her university degree.
Saltillo was also the scene last Friday, August 29th, 2003, of the most
recent encounter between American and Mexican state legislators-the
"Conferencia Legislativa Fronteriza"-the Border Legislative Conference. It
was attended by American state legislators from Texas, Arizona and
California, and Mexican state legislators from Coahuila, Chihuahua,
Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon.
The meeting seemed to have run smoothly enough until after the 3 p.m. lunch
break. When the delegates returned, a full-fledged debate over U.S.
immigration policy ensued.
In the Mexican press, a front-page headline describing the conference read
"Xenophobia divides the legislators". ("Xenofobia divide a legisladores" El
Siglo de Torreón August 30th, 2003 [cached version])
In Mexico, "xenophobia" refers to any U.S. attempt, however feeble, to
control its own border.
Ricardo Castro, a Mexican legislator from the state of Chihuahua, one of
Mexico's more prosperous states, informed the conference that illegal
immigration from Mexico to the U.S. cannot be stopped. Which means that
Castro, like so many other Mexican politicians, doesn't want it to stop.
Another Chihuahua legislator, Victor Hugo Estala, called U.S. immigration
policy "xenophobic, de-humanizing and racist."
Estala demanded to know why the U.S. government tolerates groups which "hunt
illegals like animals in Arizona." He mentioned the Barnett brothers (the
public-spirited owners of Cross Rail Ranch) by name (fame!), and attacked
the newspapers of Arizona. Estala charged said Arizona newspapers with
inciting Americans to form groups such as Ranch Rescue and American Patrol.
American Patrol, including its Arizona division "American Border Patrol" is
already well known in the Mexican media, where it has been referred to as a
"paramilitary group" They've even shown footage of Glenn Spencer on Mexican
television!
Far from being a "paramilitary group" though, American Patrol is an activist
organization informing the public. Its website derives maybe 99% of its
content from articles in the mainstream media. Read American Patrol and you
can see on a daily basis how far the balkanization of America has gone. As
for American Border Patrol, its function is to carry out surveillance on the
border and report the presence of illegals to the U.S. Border Patrol (and
what's wrong with that?).
The infamous Barnett brothers-well, they're protecting their property. I've
discovered that Vicente Fox protects his ranch, too. In fact, property
owners in Mexico go to great lengths to keep out trespassers.
If anybody does objects to the existence of groups like Ranch Rescue, the
solution is simple: the U.S. government should control the border. If the
border were under control, such organizations would never have come into
existence.
The real issue is that Mexico's politicians (and their American
collaborators) don't want anybody opposing illegal immigration.
If the Chihuahua delegation was really serious about human rights, they
could be investigating the ongoing murders of young women in the border city
of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. Or the Coahuila delegates could investigate the
frequent murders of Central American immigrants in the city of Saltillo
itself.
But, being Mexican domestic issues, these weren't on the conference
table.unlike U.S. immigration policy.
At the Saltillo conference, Chihauhua's indignant Estala [send him mail ]
looked straight at the Arizona delegation and self-righteously demanded
"Why do the Americans not act with firmness to stop these aggressions? Why
the rejection of everyone who resembles a Mexican?" [Full speech, in
Spanish]
["Por qué los norteamericanos no actúan con firmeza para detener estas
agresiones? ¿Por qué el repudio a todo aquel que tenga el aspecto de
mexicano?"]
On questions of immigration, American officials tend to capitulate to
Mexican officials. But in Saltillo, astonishingly, the Arizona delegation
did not. They refused a Mexican demand to protest to Washington over the
"hunting" of illegals in their state. The answer given by Arizona state
representative Ray Barnes is worth repeating:
According to the Siglo,
The representative of the Arizona congress, 60ish Ray Barnes got red in the
face and with unconcealed anger, rejected the appeal, saying that it was
illegal according to the Constitution, that he had sworn an oath when taking
office, and it was unjust of the Mexican legislators ask him to violate his
oath and abandon his charge, because they were defending something illegal.
"I think it's unfair that Mexican legislators ask me .... to defend
something illegal....it's unfair that this legislative body accuse us of
being discriminatory, because we refuse to violate the laws of the United
States..." ("Creo que es injusto que los legisladores de México me pidan que
ponga en peligro mi juramento y me fuercen a abandonar mi cargo, porque
defenderÃa algo illegal.")
But the entire American delegation did not close ranks with Ray Barnes.
According to the Siglo story, the U.S. Hispanic legislators sided with the
Mexican critics!
US Representatives divided among themselves
The legislators of Hispanic ancestry were not in agreement with their
Arizona companions. One of them, from Texas, said that in his state the
armed groups that hunt illegals act outside the law and will be punished,
pronto! SE DIVIDEN LOS REPRESENTANTES DE EU
Los legisladores de ascendencia "hispana", no estuvieron de acuerdo con sus
compañeros de Arizona. Uno de ellos, de Texas, dijo que en su estado los
grupos armados que cazan ilegales actúan fuera de la ley y que "pronto serán
castigados".
One of these "legislators of Hispanic ancestry," Texas' state representative
Roberto Gutierrez, went off on a little tirade of his own:
"When have you seen, in the United States, a Canadian, legal or illegal,
mistreated? Does the brown skin of the Mexicans disturb Americans since they
're not as light-skinned as the Canadians?"
Ah, the Canadian Argument. I've heard this before..
We might as well admit it-Mexican immigrants and Canadian immigrants are not
treated equally.
Mexicans are treated better than Canadians.
Consider:
America's nepotistic "family reunification" legal immigration system
favors Mexicans over Canadians-because they muscled in first after the 1965
Act.
White male Canadian immigrants are not eligible for affirmative action,
while Mexican immigrants are-regardless of their color.
The U.S. political elite bends over backwards to pander to Mexican
immigrants but doesn't give a rip about pandering to Canadian immigrants.
Have you ever seen a U.S. president celebrate Canada Day in the White House?
Mexicans get the money. As VDARE.com readers were recently informed by
Ed Rubenstein: "Over one in three (35.7%) Mexican immigrant households are
on welfare. About a quarter (24.9%) of illegal Mexican immigrants receive
benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children." And the Canadians?
Rubenstein tells us that "...less than one in thirteen (7.3%) immigrant
households from Canada receive benefits."
The "Canadian Argument" is completely wrong-but it's really just a
smokescreen to avoid the real issue.
Another bilateral legislative conference is scheduled for mid-November in
Tucson, Arizona.
VDARE.COM will be watching.
American citizen Allan Wall lives and works legally in Mexico, where he
holds an FM-2 residency and work permit, but serves six weeks a year with
the Texas Army National Guard, in a unit composed almost entirely of
Americans of Mexican ancestry. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his
FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here; his website is here. Readers
can contact Allan Wall at [email protected].
http://www.vdare.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
By Allan Wall
Saltillo is the capital of the state of Coahuila in northern Mexico. It has
fine museums, colonial architecture and a relatively cool climate. It's
certainly worth a visit. And, before we met, my wife lived there while
obtaining her university degree.
Saltillo was also the scene last Friday, August 29th, 2003, of the most
recent encounter between American and Mexican state legislators-the
"Conferencia Legislativa Fronteriza"-the Border Legislative Conference. It
was attended by American state legislators from Texas, Arizona and
California, and Mexican state legislators from Coahuila, Chihuahua,
Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon.
The meeting seemed to have run smoothly enough until after the 3 p.m. lunch
break. When the delegates returned, a full-fledged debate over U.S.
immigration policy ensued.
In the Mexican press, a front-page headline describing the conference read
"Xenophobia divides the legislators". ("Xenofobia divide a legisladores" El
Siglo de Torreón August 30th, 2003 [cached version])
In Mexico, "xenophobia" refers to any U.S. attempt, however feeble, to
control its own border.
Ricardo Castro, a Mexican legislator from the state of Chihuahua, one of
Mexico's more prosperous states, informed the conference that illegal
immigration from Mexico to the U.S. cannot be stopped. Which means that
Castro, like so many other Mexican politicians, doesn't want it to stop.
Another Chihuahua legislator, Victor Hugo Estala, called U.S. immigration
policy "xenophobic, de-humanizing and racist."
Estala demanded to know why the U.S. government tolerates groups which "hunt
illegals like animals in Arizona." He mentioned the Barnett brothers (the
public-spirited owners of Cross Rail Ranch) by name (fame!), and attacked
the newspapers of Arizona. Estala charged said Arizona newspapers with
inciting Americans to form groups such as Ranch Rescue and American Patrol.
American Patrol, including its Arizona division "American Border Patrol" is
already well known in the Mexican media, where it has been referred to as a
"paramilitary group" They've even shown footage of Glenn Spencer on Mexican
television!
Far from being a "paramilitary group" though, American Patrol is an activist
organization informing the public. Its website derives maybe 99% of its
content from articles in the mainstream media. Read American Patrol and you
can see on a daily basis how far the balkanization of America has gone. As
for American Border Patrol, its function is to carry out surveillance on the
border and report the presence of illegals to the U.S. Border Patrol (and
what's wrong with that?).
The infamous Barnett brothers-well, they're protecting their property. I've
discovered that Vicente Fox protects his ranch, too. In fact, property
owners in Mexico go to great lengths to keep out trespassers.
If anybody does objects to the existence of groups like Ranch Rescue, the
solution is simple: the U.S. government should control the border. If the
border were under control, such organizations would never have come into
existence.
The real issue is that Mexico's politicians (and their American
collaborators) don't want anybody opposing illegal immigration.
If the Chihuahua delegation was really serious about human rights, they
could be investigating the ongoing murders of young women in the border city
of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. Or the Coahuila delegates could investigate the
frequent murders of Central American immigrants in the city of Saltillo
itself.
But, being Mexican domestic issues, these weren't on the conference
table.unlike U.S. immigration policy.
At the Saltillo conference, Chihauhua's indignant Estala [send him mail ]
looked straight at the Arizona delegation and self-righteously demanded
"Why do the Americans not act with firmness to stop these aggressions? Why
the rejection of everyone who resembles a Mexican?" [Full speech, in
Spanish]
["Por qué los norteamericanos no actúan con firmeza para detener estas
agresiones? ¿Por qué el repudio a todo aquel que tenga el aspecto de
mexicano?"]
On questions of immigration, American officials tend to capitulate to
Mexican officials. But in Saltillo, astonishingly, the Arizona delegation
did not. They refused a Mexican demand to protest to Washington over the
"hunting" of illegals in their state. The answer given by Arizona state
representative Ray Barnes is worth repeating:
According to the Siglo,
The representative of the Arizona congress, 60ish Ray Barnes got red in the
face and with unconcealed anger, rejected the appeal, saying that it was
illegal according to the Constitution, that he had sworn an oath when taking
office, and it was unjust of the Mexican legislators ask him to violate his
oath and abandon his charge, because they were defending something illegal.
"I think it's unfair that Mexican legislators ask me .... to defend
something illegal....it's unfair that this legislative body accuse us of
being discriminatory, because we refuse to violate the laws of the United
States..." ("Creo que es injusto que los legisladores de México me pidan que
ponga en peligro mi juramento y me fuercen a abandonar mi cargo, porque
defenderÃa algo illegal.")
But the entire American delegation did not close ranks with Ray Barnes.
According to the Siglo story, the U.S. Hispanic legislators sided with the
Mexican critics!
US Representatives divided among themselves
The legislators of Hispanic ancestry were not in agreement with their
Arizona companions. One of them, from Texas, said that in his state the
armed groups that hunt illegals act outside the law and will be punished,
pronto! SE DIVIDEN LOS REPRESENTANTES DE EU
Los legisladores de ascendencia "hispana", no estuvieron de acuerdo con sus
compañeros de Arizona. Uno de ellos, de Texas, dijo que en su estado los
grupos armados que cazan ilegales actúan fuera de la ley y que "pronto serán
castigados".
One of these "legislators of Hispanic ancestry," Texas' state representative
Roberto Gutierrez, went off on a little tirade of his own:
"When have you seen, in the United States, a Canadian, legal or illegal,
mistreated? Does the brown skin of the Mexicans disturb Americans since they
're not as light-skinned as the Canadians?"
Ah, the Canadian Argument. I've heard this before..
We might as well admit it-Mexican immigrants and Canadian immigrants are not
treated equally.
Mexicans are treated better than Canadians.
Consider:
America's nepotistic "family reunification" legal immigration system
favors Mexicans over Canadians-because they muscled in first after the 1965
Act.
White male Canadian immigrants are not eligible for affirmative action,
while Mexican immigrants are-regardless of their color.
The U.S. political elite bends over backwards to pander to Mexican
immigrants but doesn't give a rip about pandering to Canadian immigrants.
Have you ever seen a U.S. president celebrate Canada Day in the White House?
Mexicans get the money. As VDARE.com readers were recently informed by
Ed Rubenstein: "Over one in three (35.7%) Mexican immigrant households are
on welfare. About a quarter (24.9%) of illegal Mexican immigrants receive
benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children." And the Canadians?
Rubenstein tells us that "...less than one in thirteen (7.3%) immigrant
households from Canada receive benefits."
The "Canadian Argument" is completely wrong-but it's really just a
smokescreen to avoid the real issue.
Another bilateral legislative conference is scheduled for mid-November in
Tucson, Arizona.
VDARE.COM will be watching.
American citizen Allan Wall lives and works legally in Mexico, where he
holds an FM-2 residency and work permit, but serves six weeks a year with
the Texas Army National Guard, in a unit composed almost entirely of
Americans of Mexican ancestry. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his
FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here; his website is here. Readers
can contact Allan Wall at [email protected].
http://www.vdare.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
