Read this article (Mexico to campaign to legalize workers), and try to tell me it's a good thing to have millions of citizens of another country on our soil.
[Mexico's foreign minister Jorge] Castaneda said Mexican officials will begin rallying unions, churches, universities and Mexican communities.
"What's important is that American society sees a possible migratory agreement in a positive light," Castaneda said. "We are already giving instructions to our consulates that they begin propagating militant activities -- if you will -- in their communities."
Whose country is this anyway? Can we let another country have this kind of influence on us?
If, instead of being next to Mexico we were next to France, Russia, or Yemen, would them sending millions of their citizens to us and attempting to change our laws be allowed?
Even easier, let's consider what would happen if Canada's economy collapses and its leaders are unable to fix it. That's not impossible; a large part of Canada's income is from timber, and could be severly impacted by, say, changing weather or tree diseases. We could have tens of thousands of unemployed Canadians streaming across our northern border. Canada's problems would become our own. All those Canadians would have a divided loyalty, if they had any to the U.S. to begin with. And, they'd form a powerful, pro-Canadian bloc in the U.S. Canada could attempt to dictate U.S. policy. Would we stand for it?
At what point does rhetoric like this become a de facto declaration of war?
By the way, Castanada was born in Texas, so this isn't just a translation problem, he knew exactly what he was saying.
Bush seems to be completely on the wrong side of this issue. Witness this article:
[Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-Colo.)] criticisms of President Bush's immigration policy bought him a 40-minute rebuke earlier this year from Bush adviser Karl Rove, who, in the Congressman's own words, warned him "never to darken the door of the White House again."
Immigration2003 · Sat, 11/23/2002 - 15:36 · Importance: 1