File photo by Michael J. Costa.
By Jill Chapin
July 8, 2010
Everyone has a right to voice what they believe, even if it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
But the people in the U.S. would be better served by a media who reports the obvious contradiction of a country who points their finger at the state of Arizona’s new immigration laws while enforcing their own stringent laws south of our border. Although a slight majority of Americans already support Arizona’s desperate reaction to our federal government’s abdication of upholding our laws, I imagine many more would support Arizona if they knew how wildly hypocritical are Mexico’s complaints about this determined and feisty state.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon gave a revealing interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. When asked if somebody who sneaks into Mexico illegally could get a job, Calderon answered that if somebody did that, they would be sent back. In fact, Mexico annually deports more illegal immigrants than does the U.S.
Arizona’s governor recently had to call off a border conference scheduled to take place in Phoenix because Mexican governors planned to boycott it, saying that Arizona’s new immigration law violates civil rights and is based on ethnic and cultural prejudices. No mention is made of their citizens violating the laws of our country.
Some of their points are valid; it will be inevitable that racial profiling will increase due to the nature of the law regarding traffic stops. But that doesn’t give the governors from the Mexican states the moral high ground to cast stones from their glass house.
They must feel emboldened to do so, however, because they can count on our politically correct pundits to spew forth boiler plate rhetoric about Arizona being racially intolerant.
But if our media had more independent owners instead of the many being owned and controlled by the few, perhaps we’d get a more balanced assessment of how much more draconian are Mexico’s laws compared to ours. Dr. J. Michael Waller, a journalist and terrorist expert, says that Mexico’s immigration laws are some of the strictest of any country, and they enforce them to the letter. In fact, their laws would be the envy of most Americans if they were to be implemented north of Mexico’s border.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that immigrants are in Mexico legally and have the means to sustain themselves economically. They must be of good character and have no criminal records. Their laws ensure that authorities have a record of each foreign visitor, that they are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics, and that those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Waller writes that the Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens.
The Mexican governors who threatened to call off the conference with four U.S. governors are hoping that it can be relocated to another border state. New Mexico and California are trying to accommodate the wishes of the Mexican governors. Apparently the motto “United We Stand” applies to allegiance not to one of their own, but to those of a foreign country. It would send a powerful message if all of our states should decline to host the conference if it’s not held in Phoenix as planned, thus demonstrating loyal support of Arizona’s intent, which is simply to force our federal government to protect our borders, just as Mexico fiercely protects theirs.
The irony is that most Americans are grateful for Arizona’s cowboy mentality but are too intimidated by the politically correct to speak out. They should take heed of the words of William Arthur Ward who said, “Feeling gratitude and not expressing it is like wrapping a present and not giving it.”
Editor’s Note: Views expressed by columnists published on FogCityJournal.com are not necessarily the views or beliefs of FogCityJournal.com. FCJ supports free speech in all its varied forms and provides a forum for a complete spectrum of viewpoints.
The Hunger Site
July 10, 2010 at 11:16 am
Marc,
Absolutely.
I think it was Erica McDonald who once made the point that if you’re going to have free movement of capital, then you should at least give labor the same rights.
Makes sense to me. Human beings should have at least as much rights as capital. Actually more rights if this were a truly humane and democratic society, but since we live under capitalism, can we at least agree that people should have the same rights as business?
July 9, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Another point that must be raised with respect to immigration from Mexico to the US is NAFTA. Since 1994, NAFTA has resulted in opening up Mexico to competition from cheap US agribusiness corn which has replaces traditional, sustainable patterns of food production, storage and distribution in the countryside.
This has disrupted families and communities, and is a major contributor towards driving desperate youth into the cities, which means a steady supply of rank and file for the drug cartels which are destabilizing Mexico in order to serve US demand.
-marc
July 9, 2010 at 2:59 pm
What’s your point Jill? There’s a lot that’s f-ed up about the Mexican government. That doesn’t give the US government the excuse to codify racism.
July 9, 2010 at 8:27 am
The notion that Mexico and the US are equivalent partners centered around the border is mistaken. Most immigrants deported from Mexico came north from Central America, and like in the US, are deported back to the south, not the north.
There are reasons why immigration flows to the north and not to the south, and those reasons have to do with the mechanics of why we in the US enjoy such a disproportionate standard of living when compared to the global south.
Up until the late 20th century, the US had rammed the Monroe Doctrine down the throats of Latin America, opening up its veins to drain cheap raw materials and labor northward. The US spared no level of brutality, supporting brutal dictators like Rios Montt, D’Abuisson, Pinochet, Noriega, Somoza and Diaz-Ordaz, names which will live in infamy.
Predictably, this led to massive poverty in Mexico and points south. Chiapas is one of the poorest states in Mexico, but when compared to the dismal economic situation in Central America, Chiapas appears like Europe in economic comparison to Guatemala. Honduras and Nicaragua are steps further down on that ladder.
Immigration is driven as as much by push as it is by pull, people don’t tend to up and leave their families for no good reason. US foreign and economic policies provided the poverty which pushed folks to move here, and the hoarding of that economic booty here in the US is the pull that brings immigrants here.
Why are people surprised that those whom we impoverish are coming here to the US to get what we took from them in the first instance? And how can any writer assume equivalence between two situations that cannot be more different as a basis for analysis?
-marc
July 9, 2010 at 5:57 am
Every year, thousands of people travel through Mexico without legal permission as irregular migrants. The lack of access to protection and justice makes migrants easy targets for criminal gangs and corrupt public officials. Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis fuelled by widespread impunity for those responsible for abuses. In its April 28, 2010 report, “Mexico: Invisible victims. Migrants on the move in Mexico,” Amnesty International calls on the federal Mexican authorities to lead, develop and implement an action plan to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of irregular migrants in Mexico.