What a sad commentary on the state of the migration policy debated when asimple call for bilateral cooperation loosens an avalanche of anti-Mexico vitriol from misguided Americans who confuse sword rattling with patriotism.Then, she follows that with reading bits from the mail she received about an earlier column. While she apparently wants the reader to disagree with most of her epistlers, I'm having trouble doing so since most of them are completely right. Obviously, I could waste my time showing how most are indeed right, but instead I'll just provide this:
Here's the way two researchers put it two years ago: "Offering to work more closely with Mexico on trade and migration, the United States can press its neighbor both to adopt reforms that will help its workforce achieve parity in earning power and to develop common procedures and competencies in law enforcement, immigration policy, and defense. Perhaps integration may then come close to becoming a reality."Here's the report she's refering to. As you might have guessed, the "integration" refered to in the quote above is "continental integration", aka a sovereignty-sapping scheme to join the U.S., Canada, and Mexico together into an EU-style superstate. I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether simply calling for such a form of governance rises to the level of treason or not, or whether one would need to actually try to bring it about to meet the requirements of that most serious charge.
Is that a call to treason? Leftist propaganda? Hardly. That plea for bilateral migration cooperation is quoted from a report by the very architect of the conservative ideology that currently reigns in the United State — the Heritage Foundation.
Immigration2005b · Tue, 12/20/2005 - 09:35 · Importance: 1