Monday, May 3, 2010

Things Get Hot, and "Do As We Say, Not As We Do" says Calderon

Well, the protests against Arizona and any immigration reform have come and gone from the weekend. Despite the sheer volume of the cries, the number of people were not what was expected. LA had about half the numbers they expected, and Chicago only had about 8,000. I'm sure you'll appreciate this:
Upset — and scared, said a 40-year-old undocumented Mexican immigrant named Moses, who has lived and worked in the United States for 19 years. He currently works as a foreman on state-financed construction projects, he said. (Emphasis mine.)

“I pay my taxes, I try my best,” he said. “We need a chance because of our family. All my kids are U.S.-born.”

State financed projects in Illinois, and they don't require proper documentation? Wow.

And while I am talking about the Immigration protesters, I want to share a video with you that NQ regular, HARP, provided me. This is a disturbing video out of Santa Cruz:

I hate to make the obvious distinction, but this is the antithesis of the Tea Party rallies, isn't it?

I am still trying to wrap my head around why people think the United States should have completely open borders. It seems they are fine with the US having absolutely no idea who is coming in, any way to track them, or anyway to protect the border states. Why?

There is another issue here, too. These protesters seem to be oblivious to, or in complete and utter denial about, the rampant crime in these border states, and the staggering costs associated with having so many illegal immigrants come in. Texas Rep. Riddle said that it costs Texas FOUR BILLION dollars a year to deal with illegal immigrants: education, crime, and healthcare oare three major issues. It costs California TEN billion dollars a year.

Just who do these protesters think should pay for this? I think we know the answer to that. Even still - what other country in the world would allow people to enter without any documentation? None of which I am aware.

Which brings me to this. Mexican President Felipe Calderon is also lambasting Arizona for their recent attempt to enforce existing federal law. Oh, yes, he had all kinds of things to say in this article, Mexican Hypocrisy? U.S. Neighbor Has Its Own Tough Take on Immigration:
Mexican President Felipe Calderon says his government "cannot and will not remain indifferent" in the face of Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, which he says violates human rights. But Mexico itself has "incredibly restrictive" immigration laws, experts told

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says his government "cannot and will not remain indifferent" in the face of Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, which he says violates human rights. But Mexico itself has "incredibly restrictive" immigration laws, experts told

When Arizona's law goes into effect this summer, law enforcement officers in the state will be required to verify the immigration status of individuals they suspect are in the country illegally. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder quickly criticized the law despite its popularity in Arizona, and a referendum drive and a lawsuit have emerged as potential roadblocks to it.

But Calderon's objection has riled some immigration policy experts, who called his take on the measure misguided given Mexico's policies on unauthorized residents, particularly how the country deals with illegal entry and foreign ownership of property.

"It shows more than anything else that Mexico's restrictive immigration policies have kept that country poor and in conflict for years," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based conservative think tank. "The United States should not try to emulate that."

Before last year, when Mexican immigration law was amended, the penalties for entering Mexico illegally ranged from fines to imprisonment for up to two years, followed by deportation. The law now allows for fines up to 5700 pesos (roughly $470), and a $400 fine for overstaying on a visa.

Hmmm. Let's see, fines, imprisonment, and deportation. That is our neighbor to the South. The one whose president is criticizing us. Oh, wait - he probably just wanted to get in good with our president, who is busy criticizing Arizona, while not lifting a pinky to help them. Nice.

But there is more:
And the U.S. State Department warns Americans to exercise "extreme caution" prior to investing in property in Mexico, due to substantially different real estate practices and laws. The Mexican Constitution bans direct ownership by foreigners of real estate within 10 kilometers -- or 6.2 miles -- of any border and within 50 kilometers (31 miles) of any coastline.

"In order to permit foreign investment in these areas, the Mexican government has created a trust mechanism in which a bank has title to the property but a trust beneficiary enjoys the benefits of ownership," the State Department profile on Mexico reads. "However, U.S. citizens are vulnerable to title challenges that may result in years of litigation and possible eviction."

Nowrasteh said those policies hurt Mexico financially and contribute to a system that is not designed to accommodate foreigners.

"Restrictive ownership of property by foreigners restricts foreign investment," he said. "It restricts the movement of entrepreneurs and laborers to Mexico who make the country wealthier. Any person around the world should be able to own property and invest in any economy around the world. It's to everyone's benefit."

Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin said Mexico's immigration laws are "far more draconian" than those in the United States, adding that Mexican authorities can "exercise any discretion" regarding deportations.

"So it's particularly ironic to see them complaining about America when we allow open borders activists and illegal aliens to march on the streets demanding that we give them more than they certainly do in Mexico," said Malkin, who is a Fox News contributor.

No kidding. Pot, meet kettle. What sheer and utter hypocrisy from Mexico's president, if you ask me. Though I am not alone:
Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, agreed that Calderon's statements regarding Arizona's law are seemingly incongruous given immigration policies in his own country.

"The Mexican government is certainly within its rights to defend its citizens abroad, but they should also remind them of the need to substantially improve immigration laws in Mexico," Selee said. "We would expect the Mexican government to want to protect their citizens living in the United States, but this is a highly public issue. It should certainly also bring about some reflection on how immigration law is applied in Mexico."

Dan Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, disagreed, saying Calderon has a right to speak his mind about Arizona's new law.

"The Mexican president has a right to complain about laws he thinks work against Mexican citizens in the United States," he said. "And the Arizona law does raise legitimate questions about discrimination."

Griswold continued, "The Mexican president is an important voice in this discussion. They're an important neighbor, an important trading partner and we have mutual interests."

Sure, Mexico is important in this discussion, especially since it is THEIR people who are being so disruptive in Arizona, Texas, and California with the drug cartels, gangs, and violence. Maybe Calderon figures better here than there.

Here's the bottom line though: no country allows people to just waltz on in without proper documentation. Canada, our friendly neighbor to the north, also has very strict immigration policies in place. They require a large sum of money in the bank, and documentation of employment, for starters. Mexico has "draconian" immigration laws. And we should at least be protecting our borders so that we can protect our citizens. No matter how loudly illegal immigrants yell to be given their "rights," the reality is, they are in this country ILLEGALLY, thus they do not deserve the same rights as American citizens have.

Do we need to make changes to our immigration laws? Probably so, as my friend, Ani points out in this excellent article. But in the meantime, we need to enforce the laws we have so that states like CA, TX, AZ, and others do not have to suffer such great expense in terms of money, time, resources, and safety.

In other words, stop playing politics to get votes, and start protecting our nation's borders for our citizens. Obama can begin NOW by reinstating the border guards and funds to secure our borders. That would be a start...


Doc99 said...

Rev, it's not only Mexicans who can cross our southern borders. Article IV of the US Constitution lists the role of the federal government is to protect the states from invasion. If 12 million illegals, undocumenteds, uninvited guests, or whatever the PC term du jour is, doesn't constitute an invasion, what does? Irony is a state having to pass a law to enforce the law. And thanks for the posting on Mexican law, btw.

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Good point, Doc, abt the Southern border (and I suppose the Northern border, to a lesser degree).

Yes, it is ironic in the extreme that a state has to pass a law to have a fed law enforced. What else is ironic is the president either not knowing the fed law on immigration, or willfully disregarding it. No, check that, chastising a state for trying to enforce the fed law. What is wrong with this picture?

Thanks for the comment, Doc!