August 30, 2005
Fabian Nunez is the Speaker of the California Assembly, and he's returned from a four-day trip to Mexico designed to smooth over our troubled relations with that fine country. Unfortunately, based not just on this trip but on his entire career, I'm a little bit confused over which country he actually represents. Does he represent America, or does he at least partially represent Mexican interests?
Needless to say, Nunez is a Democrat. While the GOP has its share of crazies and corrupt politicians, I can't think of any elected Republican who appears to have divided loyalties with another country.
The latest report on the California legislator's trip is in
"Nunez: Bush 'Turned His Back' on Mexico":
...[He said:] "I don't believe that they've shown this administration (of Fox) the respect it deserves and I don't think that as (Fox's) term draws to a close he's going to be given the respect that he didn't receive earlier..."
Nunez said that he would push for modifications in California law so that Mexican businessmen would find it easier to invest in the state...
But, wouldn't that tend to increase Mexican influence in this state? Is that good for California and the U.S.?
He criticized Bush's lack of support for the immigration reform bill sponsored by Republican Sen. John McCain and Democrat Ted Kennedy, which allows family unification, reduces the number of pending immigration cases and sets up an immigration status legalization program - but does not provide amnesty - for those who entered the country illegally...
In his judgment, one of the main problems between the two national governments is on U.S. immigration policy, which "has allowed racial prejudices to enter" into the matter, something that has made an "intelligent, honest" dialogue impossible...
Obviously, by playing the race card he's trying to stifle any form of intelligent and honest debate. And, he's also doing it in Mexico, spreading false information to our "friends" to the south. (This is vaguely reminiscent of a trip by
Nancy Pelosi to that country, in which she accused the government for which she works - and to which she presumably has some degree of allegiance - of terrorizing people.)
In actual fact, most of the legal and almost all of the illegal immigrants to the U.S. over the past several decades have come from Hispanic countries. If anything, there's a Hispanic bias in our immigration system.
As part of that intelligent and honest debate, perhaps we should take a close look at that bias. If most Mexicans think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico, is it wise to allow them to settle the U.S. southwest? And, do we really want to give the corrupt oligarchies that rule many Central and Southern American countries even more power over our country's policies? Do we really want to allow in people who
cheer for the "narcos"?
Given the choice between someone who wants to come here to be a full-fledged American, and someone who is just coming here to make money and doesn't respect our laws or our way of life and who has divided loyalties, which should we choose? To many "liberals", the second would appear to be the choice they prefer. (In the cases where a quest for racial power or for far-left ideology aren't involved, that would seem to be psychological: they appreciate the challenge, plus it makes them feel better.)
Regarding the California governor, Nunez said, "He has said things that have insulted not only the government, but also the people of Mexico," adding that the continual friction has not allowed the development of the bonds that should exist between neighbors, particularly considering the fact that Mexico is California's largest foreign trade partner.
"Instead of militarizing the border, he should seek ways to cooperate with Mexico" and increase collaboration in technology and intelligence, the California lawmaker said.
The problem, he emphasized, is that the United States "has no confidence (in Mexico) and doesn't treat it like a modern democracy."
At least we're doing one thing right then.
If the Dems were smart, they'd purge people like Nunez from their ranks, suggesting that they join the Greens or the Peace and Freedom Party instead. Otherwise, people will continue to think of the Dems as just a lunatic, un-American party.
Previously:
Mexican business leaders feeling unwanted, unloved
Should Fabian Nunez stay in Mexico?
Fabian Nunez, California Democrat, kisses up to Vicente Fox
See also this deja vu
report of a 1999 trip by Mexico's president to meet with
Antonio Villaraigosa and Gray Davis. The latter was, of course, recalled. Perhaps a similar effort should be mounted in the case of Nunez, Gil Cedillo, and other "American" politicians.
Posted to California at August 30, 2005 06:16 PM
Comments
He's Hispanic. And an ass.
"playing the race card"
Whether mentioning race/ethnicity is good or bad depends on the context and how it is done.
One reason to oppose current legal (and illegal, of course) immigration is that it threatens to overturn the historic demographic heritage of the US as a white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian nation. Of course doing this has wider social, economic, and cultural consequences as well, as despite what the Declaration of Independence says, all men are definitely not created equal, and many average differences in racial/ethnic groups can be measured across populations (e.g. intelligence). But one ought to be free to have an opinion about whether this demographic makeup and its associated cultural heritage has value or not, or more value than what will replace it (look at the census projections), and is therefore worth preserving. And if you decide it is worth preserving, then current immigration patterns must be changed, and this is, in part, a racial/ethnic issue. There is no escaping this. And if you then go on to advocate this preservation, you have to be prepared to deal with the expected name calling -- "racist", "xenophobe" -- in a straightforward way.
Nunez's criticism of US immigration policy is in any case laughable: apparently, if we don't welcome any Hispanic/Mexican (i.e. a non-white who isn't white in the same way he isn't), who happens to want to come here than we are guilty of racial prejudice.
Mexicans are free to become as happy and wealthy as they please. In Mexico. Nothing is stopping them.
Posted by: eh at August 31, 2005 04:14 AM
Can't think of a GOP politician with divided loyalties? I can: Jorge Boosh. How about Alberto Gonzalez? Chris Cannon? David Dreier? These guys are all pushing Mexico's agenda when it comes to immigration and God-only-knows what else.
Posted by: Gary at August 31, 2005 08:35 AM
