safe legal orderly
"A safe, legal, and orderly flow of people"
A wide assortment of illegal/massive immigration supporters have used variants of the phrase "safe, legal, and orderly flow of people" referring to immigrants or guest workers from Mexico and other countries. In a way, it's a shibboleth letting us know that the speaker is, in a manner of speaking, a "pod person":
* 2006, the Canadian government spoke of a "safe, humane, and orderly repatriation of Mexican nationals".
* 2009, after a meeting with Felipe Calderon, change.gov released a statement containing: "President-elect Obama underscored his commitment to working with Congress to fix the broken U.S. immigration system and fostering safe, legal and orderly migration."
* 2014, the Obama administration said they were undertaking a "discussion of how the United States and Central American governments are cooperating to promote safe, legal, and orderly migration between our countries."
A very curious phrase illegal immigration supporters use is a variant of "safe, legal, and orderly" when referring to movements of people between countries. For instance, George W Bush, a Mexican consul, and the Canadian government have all used variants of that phrase.
Obama misleads on immigration at Facebook; Zuckerberg and incompetent/corrupt GOP, Teaparty leaders help - 04/21/11
Barack Obama spoke live over Facebook yesterday at an event sponsored by that company. He misled about immigration and promoted an anti-American bill. He got direct help with his attempt to mislead from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and he got indirect help from corrupt or incompetent GOP and Teaparty leaders:
Obama thinks illegal aliens are Americans; forgets about massive unemployment; promotes massive immigration - 09/29/10
1. He referred to illegal aliens as "us"; he's given them citizenship in his own mind or he's confused about basic American concepts...
2. He seemed not to remember that millions of Americans are unemployed...
3. And, he generally promoted massive immigration. He did that with a series of canards and at one point sounded just like George W Bush.
Video of the appearance is at peekURL.com/v26f71b and for the first, here's what he said :
Now, unfortunately, right now this is getting demagogued. A lot of folks think it’s an easy way to score political points is by trying to act as if there’s a “them” and an “us,” instead of just an “us.” And I’m always suspicious of politics that is dividing people instead of bringing them together. I think now is the time for us to come together.
Obviously, there is a "them" and an "us". The "us" are U.S. citizens, including those who voted for Obama. The "them" are foreign citizens. Obama has either naturalized all 12 million or so illegal aliens in his mind, or he's unclear on the very concept of U.S. citizenship. Considering his past comments it could be either one of those or a combination; he hasn't shown that he has a fundamental grasp of American concepts in past speeches (this, this are just two examples)
For the second, as if he hadn't paid attention to what's been going on with the economy for several years, he said:
[immigration] means our economy's more vital, and we've got more people in the workforce who are gonna be out there workin' and startin' businesses and supporting us when we're retired, makin' sure Social Security is solvent, all those things are important
He sounded just like George Bush both in content and in delivery. Did he forget about the millions of unemployed, the stimulus plan, and all of that? Pretending he's speaking about long-term gains isn't going to wash since those gains can be wiped out by protracted downturns such as the one we're currently experiencing, including where we have five workers for every job opening.
Other than those two, the rest was a regular Festival of Canards.
He used, as one might expect, the nation of immigrants canard. Of course, he also hastens to remind us - as they all do - that we're a nation of laws too. Then, he uses a variant of the safe legal orderly shibboleth ("we have to make sure our immigration system is orderly, and fair.")
He then admits that allowing illegal immigration isn't fair to those in other countries waiting to come here legally. However, that follows him blaming the system for that, a variant of system is broken.
He then states we need to "affirm our immigrant traditions"; see immigration tradition fallacy.
He then states, "yes, let's secure our borders"; see secure the border.
Making a false claim about policy, he thinks if we made legal immigration easier we'd reduce illegal immigration. He ignores the fact that there are about 6.5 billion people outside the U.S. (and about 5 billion of them are poorer than Mexicans). And, a large percentage of those people would come here if they could. So many would want to come here that we could raise legal immigration from now til doomsday and it would only make illegal immigration worse.
He wants to crack down on employers, but the only reasons he mentions are from the perspective of illegal aliens: he doesn't want them to be underpaid, etc. I don't want that either, but the more relevant reason to crack down on employers is to make sure they hire Americans or legal workers. See the somewhat related immigration wage floor, although he didn't mention the impact of illegal aliens being hired on Americans at all.
He then expresses support for comprehensive immigration reform; see the link for the downsides he didn't acknowledge.
He also says "economically, immigrants can also be a huge source of strength", mentioning that we have a younger workforce than Europe or Japan. Except, their population is much more educated than most of our immigrants.
The latest GOP/conservative savior is New Jersey governor Chris Christie, despite the fact that what he supports would increase spending and reduce the GOP's power. In a recent interview , he implied opposition to the new immigration law in Arizona and came out in support of comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. The latter would lead to millions new Democrats joining the voter rolls and would lead to even more illegal immigration and even more spending. From :
On the hot-button topic of immigration reform, he said he has long declined to “demagogue” the issue as a former U.S. Attorney, because “I come from law enforcement and it’s not an easy issue.”
But he did intimate that he thinks stringent state-by-state laws – such as in Arizona – are the wrong approach, and added, “I think President Obama doesn’t do this at his own risk because it’s affecting the economy in the country…to me, I think the president’s really gotta show the leadership on this.”
“This is a federal problem, it’s gotta have a federal fix,” he said. “I’m not really comfortable with state law enforcement having a big role.”
He said that without border security, enforcement of existing laws and a “clear” path to legalization for immigrants, there would never be a fix.
The "clear" path is amnesty. See also Is U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie a corruption supporter? (downplays illegal immigration then "clarifies" remarks).
UPDATE: Ben Smith provides a longer excerpt at :
"What I support is making sure that the federal government [plays] each and every one of its roles: Securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and having an orderly process -- whatever that process is -- for people to gain citizenship."
He added: "It's a very easy issue to demagogue and I'm just not going to participate in that."
Christie said more resources -- specifically, "money" -- were needed to support federal law enforcement and border security, along with "having a clear understandable law that people can follow."
"Until you have both of those...you're not going to fix the problem," he said.
Christie also said he thinks state and local law enforcement don't have appropriate training to enforce immigration laws, and that it can distract from their overriding goal of keeping the public safe.
Obviously, there's much to quiz him on, just starting with his secure the border and safe legal orderly rhetoric. It's too bad there were no real reporters around to walk him through what he supports.
 politico.com/news/stories/0610/39208.html The "reporters" were Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman and, while we're informed what they and Christie had for breakfast, neither of them bothered to call Christie on the downsides of amnesty.
Former George W Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson continues to be an attack toy poodle for the Bush family, this time offering "A test of Arizona's political character" in the Washington Post (link). I'm going to outsource most of this to Byron York (link) and fill in some of the gaps.
Gerson starts with no less than two hoary talking points in one paragraph:
[Chaos on the border] is an argument for effective border enforcement. It is also an argument for a guest-worker program that permits an orderly, regulated flow of temporary, migrant laborers, allowing border authorities to focus on more urgent crimes than those resulting from the desire to provide for one's family.
The law forbids the use of race or ethnicity as the "sole" basis for questioning. So what are the other telltale indicators? ...Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law, looked flustered when asked during a news conference the obvious question of how illegal immigrants might be identified... Yet Brewer has ordered Arizona police to be trained in the warning signs of illegality -- signs that she cannot describe. There is a reason no Arizona official has publicly detailed these standards -- because the descriptions would sound like racial stereotyping. And probably would be.
Bear in mind that the preceding appears in an article promoting border enforcement, which would be done by the Border Patrol and other agencies such as ICE. Those and similar groups have decades of experience at being able to tell illegal aliens from citizens and legal immigrants and visitors, and all without the legal armagedon that Gerson concern trolls about. No doubt there will be a few cases of local yahoo cops crossing the line, but with the proper guidelines and training - something that Brewer is developing - that can be mitigated.
Ironic: Dick Armey's support for massive immigration leads to more spending, bigger government - 11/12/09
Back in 1995, Tea Parties leader Dick Armey of FreedomWorks spoke at the Cato Institute about various topics including immigration (cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ja-da.html), and his remarks are incredibly ironic: his immigration policies lead to the opposite of the other policies he claims to support.
ACLU-Mexico partnership calls for nearly open borders; "humanitarian crisis" they helped cause - 09/30/09
In April 2008, the San Diego chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union announced a collaboration with Mexico’s National Commission of Human Rights, a quasi-governmental agency. They've now released a report in which they - surprise - oppose border enforcement and call for what would amount to nearly open borders. The report is entitled "Humanitarian Crisis: Migrant Deaths at the U.S.-Mexico Border", but what they fail to note is the role that they and all others who oppose immigration enforcement have played in those deaths. If the ACLU and other far-left and racial power groups had supported our laws, there would have been many fewer deaths among those trying to cross our border; see the false compassion page for more. If anyone wants to do something about this issue, go to ACLU events and ask them these questions.
You can download their report (written by Maria Jimenez) from aclu.org/immigrants/gen/41186pub20091001.html These are their recommendations:
Action on Day One:
* Recognize border crossing deaths as an international humanitarian crisis.
Action within 100 days:
* Shift more U.S. Border Patrol resources to search and rescue.
* Direct government agencies to allow humanitarian organizations to do their work to save lives and recover remains.
* Establish a binational, one-stop resource for rescue and recovery calls.
* Convene all data collecting agencies to develop a uniform system.
* Commit to transparency.
* Elevate border deaths to a bilateral priority.
* Invite international involvement.
Action within One Year:
* Adopt sensible, humane immigration and border policies.
* Support nongovernmental humanitarian efforts at the border to do what governments are unable or unwilling to do.
Ultimately, effective border enforcement strategy requires acknowledging the necessity of good faith efforts to fix this problem, respect human rights, and preserve life. Most importantly, it necessitates exploring policy options that minimize forced migration and maximize choices for legal, safe avenues of migration. Only when both nations are seriously engaged in protecting the lives of their most vulnerable populations, will the right of state sovereignty be balanced with the fundamental rights inalienable to all people.
The ACLU solution basically consists of letting anyone who wants to come here cross the border in a safe legal orderly fashion, amounting if not to open borders then to something close to it.
And, if you know a lawyer in San Diego, let them know about this:
This report was funded in part by a Grant from the San Diego County Bar Foundation generously supported by a contribution from the San Diego County Bar Association Lawyer Referral and Information Service. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the San Diego County Bar Foundation or the San Diego County Bar Association Lawyer Referral and Information Service.
UPDATE: Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post discusses the ACLU's report here. He, of course, fails to point out the role that the ACLU, the Mexican government, and the WaPo have played in encouraging people to try to cross the desert. Compare what Sarukhan says to what the ACLU says (and Bush said before):
Arturo Sarukhan, Mexican ambassador to the United States, called the deaths along the border "a matter of utmost concern," citing both countries' efforts to avoid fatalities and to "break the back" of human smuggling operations. However, he added in a written statement, "at the end of the day, a secure, orderly, legal and humane flow of migrants will be the only solution to this challenge."
David Hoffman, chief of the strategic planning, policy and analysis division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said Washington has taken many steps to reduce border deaths under a 1998 national border safety strategy, identifying dangerous areas with the Mexican government and adding rescue beacons in some areas.
"Every death is a tragedy," Hoffman said, adding that the Border Patrol has rescued nearly 11,000 illegal crossers in the past six years. "If there are shortfalls, if there are things we can do better, we are open to doing that," he said.
It's unfortunate that Hoffman didn't also take the opportunity to point to the partial culpability of those who work to prevent immigration enforcement.
UPDATE 2: There's a local news report at peekURL.com/v1iiqb5
Obama will bring back amnesty this fall (immigration "reform"). What you can do about it. - 04/08/09
Julia Preston of the New York Times offers (link, with help from Jeff Zeleny) the not-incredibly-surprising news that Barack Obama will try to push comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty) this year. See the last link for the massive problems with that scheme.
The legislation might be introduced in the fall; in May Obama will speak about this and then during the summer they'll lobby the DC establishment to get behind the plan.
According to Cecilia Munoz - a former National Council of La Raza hack now with the administration - it will be framed as "policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system"; see safe legal orderly for others saying something similar. Preston also misleads about the immigration system being "widely acknowledged to be broken"; see system is broken for other examples of that being used. The answer to both of those stock talking points is the same: amnesty won't fix the problems, which boil down to politicians being too corrupt to simply enforce our current, highly-enforceable laws.
And, consider this incredibly lame talking point:
Administration officials said that Mr. Obama's plan would not add new workers to the American work force... ...there is no evidence of any wholesale exodus of illegal immigrant workers, independent studies of census data show...
By saying that, they're acknowledging that if they took away illegal workers they could help low-wage American workers. And, it's well within their grasp to take away illegal workers: simply enforce our current laws, ramping up immigration raids over time. Instead, look at what the supposed law enforcers have done: giving illegal aliens work permits and releasing them.
Obama's plan will increase competition for low-wage jobs by converting jobs that relied on an illegal and thereby compliant labor force into one that won't be so easily pushed around, and that increased competition will lead to a lowering of wages for some already low-wage jobs. The better solution isn't to keep those workers illegal, the better solution is to encourage them to return home and reduce the competition that low-skilled Americans face. Obama clearly has little concern for them, he's trying to sell them on his claim that they won't be hurt any more than they have been already. If Obama truly cared about low-skilled American workers, he'd enforce the laws we already have.
Roy Beck makes that point a bit more eloquently:
"It just doesn’t seem rational that any political leader would say, let’s give millions of foreign workers permanent access to U.S. jobs when we have millions of Americans looking for jobs... [the reaction is] going to be, 'You're letting them keep that job, when I could have that job.'"
And, that's how you can fight this: by making a point similar to that a public appearances by those that the White House sends out to push their plan. Get their response on video and upload it to video sharing sites. Even just one administration official who's really pressed on that issue - in the form of questions rather than rants - will send a very loud message that can be heard all the way back in DC.
As the issue moves forward, we'll be providing specific questions relating to the legislation, so subscribe to our feed to be updated. In the meantime, a basic action plan for forming local groups to ask tough questions is here. Our guide to coming up with tough questions is here. If you want to do something now, go ask about another amnesty that's current legislation, the DREAM Act.
Mexico and the United States have formed a high-level, joint working group to make immigration safer and more orderly, Mexican officials announced Friday.
The working group will focus on making documented migration easier, protecting migrants' rights and improving procedures for repatriating migrants, the Mexican Foreign Relations Department said in a statement.
It also will focus on steps to inform the public about the dangers of trying to cross the border without documents.
The group was formed through the efforts of Janet Napolitano.
"I've proposed to President Obama that we make a strategic alliance of our two governments to confront the common problems and resolve them together, among them security."
[Obama] expressed his continued commitment to upgrading NAFTA to strengthen labor and environmental provisions to reflect the values that are widely shared in both of our countries, and proposed the creation of a consultative group to work on a host of issues important to the United States and Mexico, including NAFTA, energy and infrastructure.
The first bit is "fair" trade, "free" trade made palatable for leftwing consumption. The second may be an agreement to the "strategic alliance", akin to a bilateral (for now) SPP.gov.
"President-elect Obama underscored his commitment to working with Congress to fix the broken U.S. immigration system and fostering safe, legal and orderly migration. He expressed his strongly held view that immigrants should be treated with dignity and that the immigration debate should not be a vehicle for vilifying any group, and that our two countries need to work more effectively to stop the flow of illegal immigration into the United States.
Plus ca change! When he visited the U.S. almost a year ago, Calderon used the line "legal, safe and organized"; now Obama is saying the highly similar "safe, legal, orderly". Bush and many others have used similar phrases, as if they were shibboleths. Who thinks up the lines for these people? And, note that "migration" is what the Mexican government calls illegal immigration to the U.S., and Bush has used that word too. And, they've been trotting out "the system is broken" for years. And, like Bush, Obama is vilifying those who support our laws by falsely accusing most them of vilifying people. And, the last line is simply an indication that they would prefer mass legal "migration", even if - as the millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. show - they'll take the illegal variety if they can get it.
UPDATE: Per this, Calderon told Bush in a later meeting, "We have always been willing to revise aspects" of NAFTA.
And, this translates eluniversal.com.mx/notas/568942.html as:
[Obama] committed to president Felipe Calderon to achieve a comprehensive immigration reform that includes family unification... Calderon said that despite the obstacles and difficulties that exist in Congress and in U.S. public opinion, Obama is committed to advancing the implementation of immigration law for all, without exception, which addresses the situation of Mexicans already in the United States... In this respect, Obama said his government will review the raids on undocumented, because he wants to ensure that the policy work "in a humane manner."
"Family unification" may mean family reunification, aka chain migration, or it might mean something else. And, it shows the extent to which Obama sings the tune the far-left writes: many groups have been pushing for a "review" of raids. And, it's good to know that apparently Obama realizes how much "reform" is opposed by most Americans but is going to push for it despite that.
Mexican president Felipe Calderon visited five U.S. cities this week, and had 34 events scheduled with a wide range of movers and shakers (his wife had a few events also). Some of the dignitaries he met with are listed here; picture right is of him with New York governor Eliot Spitzer from presidencia.gob.mx/prensa/?contenido=33715
At every stop, he has scheduled meetings with top local and state officials, some of whom have direct links to presidential candidates.
In his speech to the California legislature (which includes several Democrats with obviously divided loyalties), he said that "I strongly believe that Mexican and Mexican-American workers are a large reason for the dynamic economy of California", which is certainly true. It's also true that millions of illegal aliens from Mexico have a very negative impact on the state and the country, but he didn't bring up the downsides. He also promoted changing illegal immigration into (massive) legal immigration. From this, he gave a shout out to the Bracero program and also said:
We need to make migration legal, safe and organized.
Compare that to George W. Bush ("I will work to ensure a system of safe and orderly migration"), a Bush rep ("safe, humane, orderly and legal program"), Rob Allyn ("safe and legal and orderly and controlled"), Jim Wallis ("safe, legal, and orderly manner") and various Mexican government reps: link, link, link.
Are they all reading from the same script?
Without specifically directing audience members to pick up the phone and call their congressmen, Calderon also hinted that a key component to ensuring a strong future for Mexico lies in the pressure Mexicans here can apply to U.S. leaders, arguing that the improvement of Mexico is a joint government venture.
One of the major costs he didn't discuss is that massive immigration from Mexico gives that country political power inside the U.S., as evidenced by a foreign leader urging Mexicans and Mexican-Americans to promote Mexico's agenda to U.S. leaders. Obviously, the agendas of the U.S. (but not necessarily our elites) differs from that of Mexico in major ways. In the case of conflicts, whose side would former immigrants from Mexico come down on?
UPDATE: Aurelio Rojas of the SacBee offers this, in which he says that Calderon said "Mexican American workers are a large reason for the dynamic economy of California"; in fact, that was actually "Mexican and Mexican-American workers..." He also said:
"The choice is not between migration and (border) security or between migration and prosperity... The choice is between a future of integration and success or a future of distrust and resentment."
But after the speech, Republican Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks said it was "inappropriate" for Calderon to "lecture" the Legislature about U.S. policies. "I don't think it's any of Mexico's business what America does with its own immigration policy, just as it's none of America's business what Mexico does with immigration policy," McClintock said... Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, who spent part of his childhood in Mexico, said McClintock did not have "a valid argument.".. "Any president of any nation has a right to their own point of view," said Nunez, who praised Calderon for his efforts to improve Mexico's economy and stem illegal immigration.
Calderon is entitled to his own POV, but whether he should be given a stage at the California Capitol is another matter. It's not surprising at all that Nunez would defend him.
And, whereever Calderon went he was greeted by some number of Mexicans protesting his pro-business policies; some pictures from Chicago here, which mentions another one of those unmentionable costs of massive immigration from Mexico:
why are we allowing the internal politics of a foreign country to play out within our borders?
And, speaking at a winery founded by a Mexican immigrant, Calderon used another stock term, referring to illegal immigration as a "phenomonon", as if it were the tides:
"We came to be here with you to defend thousands of families of Mexican workers that are here because of a natural phenomenon, that compliments the economy of the U.S. and the economy of Mexico. If we want to seek prosperity for our cities we have to have this prosperity together."
UPDATE 2: Tom Tancredo has sent a letter to Calderon. An AP report on Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa meeting with Calderon is here; per the comments, the L.A. Times doesn't seem to have reported on their meeting. The latest they appear to offer featuring both is a short report from Nancy Vogel (link), which doesn't mention anything that the reports above don't cover. The only artifact they provide from their meeting is this photo, captioned "Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, left, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon discuss trade opportunities in downtown Los Angeles":
UPDATE 3: There's another roundup here:
On the night of Feb. 13th, meeting with LA Mexican leaders, Calderon discussed the formation of a "league of anti-defamation and anti-discrimination," modeled on the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, to protect Mexicans in the U.S... Quoth Calderon, "If anyone is mercilessly defaming, ridiculing, and exacerbating hatred against Mexicans, all of us need to neutralize that force."
That links to this, which says that he said that just as the Jewish community had their league, he hoped that Mexicans would have their own. It also includes another picture of our favorite collaborateur:
Wallis has a blog at beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics, and I urge everyone to leave comments there designed to help his parishioners understand all the ways he's wrong. Here are excerpts from the email; note that the language used is like a patchwork quilt of speeches from president Bush, Howard Dean and others.
With Congress on the verge of rewriting our nation's immigration laws, too many of the loudest voices on the issue are politicians and pundits who seek to scapegoat immigrant workers, falsely blaming them for many of our nation's social and economic problems.
As Christians called by scripture to welcome and care for the strangers among us, we must seize this moment and raise our voices in a debate that is too often tainted by prejudice and fear.
Tell your representative to fix our broken immigration system with reform that is fair and compassionate.
...Specifically, we must demand that any immigration legislation includes:
Border enforcement and protection initiatives that are consistent with humanitarian values;
Reforms in our family-based immigration system that help to safely reunite separated families;
An opportunity for all immigrant workers and their families already in the U.S. to come out of the shadows to pursue an earned legal status, leading up to citizenship; and
A viable guest worker program that creates avenues for workers and their families to enter our country and work in a safe, legal, and orderly manner.
...With so many immigrant families living in poverty, we must acknowledge that discussion of immigration cannot be separated from our understanding of poverty - and is thus central to achieving the vision for overcoming poverty found in Sojourners/Call to Renewal's Covenant for a New America.
UPDATE: Jim Wallis is also involved with the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
It was a canard fest at Ohlone College in Fremont (Bay Area, CA) on Tuesday as Mexican Consul General Alfonso de Maria y Campos spoke about illegal immigration. All of his statements have been heard many times before from both Mexicans and Americans. And, Angela Woodall of The Argus (part of the ANG Newspapers group) served only as a transcription service. If - and it doesn't seem likely - she asked him any questions, they aren't included in her report.
The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, and the Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Industry, together with their counterparts from the United States and Mexico, today released the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Report to the three North American leaders. The report outlines progress of collaborative initiatives between Canada, the United States and Mexico in such vital areas as security, the economy, transportation, the environment, and public health.It goes on, including this bit of familiar language:
"This report to Prime Minister Harper, President Bush, and President Fox marks the significant progress that our three countries have made under the SPP to build on our important North American partnership," said Minister MacKay. "It's a tribute to the positive, collaborative relationships that our government has developed with Mexico and the United States, and to our common commitment to work together to build a safer, more secure and economically dynamic North America."
"Thanks to our crucial work Canadians and North Americans will be protected from security threats by smart and secure borders that promote the movement of low-risk trade and travellers within North America," said Minister Day. "For example, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, officials are developing security standards for travel documents which will be used for cross-border travel under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)."
To provide a uniform agreement between local offices of the Governments of the United States and Mexico, officials from both countries signed on June 27 an agreement to implement a pilot program in El Paso and Chicago, for the safe, humane, and orderly repatriation of Mexican nationals.UPDATE: The White House, via Condi Rice, Michael Chertoff, and Carlos Gutierrez (Commerce) has received notice of the progress being made: whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060907-9.html
[De Icaza] praised growing cooperation that has allowed increased trade and security efforts between Mexico and the United States while encouraging U.S. lawmakers to approve reforms that allow "legal, safe and orderly human migration."It's good to know that he's going to allow us to have certain rights, but the second sentence is wrong. Enforcement across the board would be enough.
"We respect the right of every country in the world ... to enforce its laws and protect its borders," de Icaza said. "But enforcement by itself won't be enough."
The ambassador, who said the decisions on immigration policy lie in Washington and with the American people, also acknowledged that his country was to blame for not creating economic conditions that encourage Mexican citizens to stay in Mexico... "We have a shared responsibility," de Icaza said. "In Mexico we also have to recognize that we need our people to stay."There's no time like the present, and helping us repatriate their citizens would be a good way to show that they're not just full of hot air.
Icaza's remarks are similar to what he said before (which I thought I'd covered but I guess not):
Mexico's ambassador to the United States says his country is committed to finding a solution to the growing problem of illegal aliens, but the United States and Mexico "must address this phenomenon in a comprehensive and mutually beneficial manner."
"Mexico absolutely respects the sovereign right of every country to control its borders and enforce its laws," Ambassador Carlos de Icaza told The Washington Times. "However, given that this is a complex challenge that affects both countries, we are absolutely convinced it is necessary to work together under the principle of shared responsibility for the proper bilateral management of the migration phenomenon.
"It is essential that Mexico is engaged in the solution because of the international implications, which require actions and commitments from Mexico," Mr. de Icaza said.
Rob Allyn heads the Texas company Allyn & Company which will be trying to burnish Mexico's image and thereby support their attempts to send us their unwanted citizens.
It shouldn't be any surprise that Allyn has links to Our Leader. In fact, he's described here as a "longtime Bush family adviser".
The Alamo was stormed 168 years ago today.
A text of President Bush's joint news conference with Mexican President Vicente Fox on Saturday...
BUSH: Hola, que tal? Bienvenidos.
Mr. President, Laura and I are pleased to welcome you and Marta to Crawford...
I will work to ensure a system of safe and orderly migration. Earlier this year, I proposed a temporary worker program, not an amnesty program, that will offer legal status as temporary workers to undocumented men and women who were employed in the United States when I announced this proposal.
OK, it's not an amnesty. And, illegal aliens are "undocumented." No lie like a Big Lie.
Under this program, America will also welcome workers from foreign countries who have been offered jobs by American employers that no American has filled.
Here's what administration representative Margaret Spellings had to say:
"We do envision that [the Bush amnesty/guestworker plan] would be open to any type of employee and any type of employer, such as nurses, teachers, high-tech workers, low-skilled workers. This is a concept that can apply broadly"
Americans aren't going to be willing to be nurses for $10 an hour, but hundreds of thousands of nurses around the world would consider that a fortune. If an employer advertises a nursing job at $10 an hour, they won't get any Americans to fill that job, and Bush's statement above will be true.
I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship. This program will match willing workers with willing employers, without disadvantaging those who have followed the law and waited in line to achieve American citizenship.
This new temporary worker program will strengthen both the American and Mexican economies. The United States will benefit from the labor of hardworking immigrants.
The average Mexican immigrant costs $50,000 over his lifetime (taxes paid - services used). That's a transfer from other Americans to his employer. A better statement would be: "Some big corporations in the United States will benefit from the labor of hardworking immigrants."
Mexico will benefit as productive citizens are able to return home with money to invest and spend in their nation's economy.
They've got three years in which to have kids here. If they have kids here, they aren't going home and we aren't going to be able to force them to go home. Sell it to someone else, George.
This system will be more humane to workers who will be protected by labor laws and able to establish their identities. It will live up to the highest ideals of free nations.
Serf labor is not a very elevated ideal.
Mr. President, thank you for the excellent dialogue we had today. Thank you for the leadership you provide for our neighbor and friend. And thank you for being a friend to Laura and me. Bienvenidos...
If this were a movie, it would be a horror movie whose protagonist is a retarded kindergartner and millions of people would be yelling "Georgie, he's not your friend!" at the screen.
Q (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The question is on the immigration policy. The government of Mexico wanted to know what the date certain would be for this new program, or what proposals you have for temporary immigrants. How do you believe it will affect the upcoming election process?
BUSH: Yes. Well, we just -- the president just discussed the border crossing cards, the issue of the border crossing cards. And he discussed the professional visas. And so we're making progress.
"Is there anything else I can do for you, el Presidente Fox, sir?"
I put forth what I think is a very reasonable proposal and a humane proposal, one that is not amnesty, but, in fact, recognizes that there are good, honorable, hard-working people here doing jobs Americans won't do.
And I certainly hope that Congress takes this issue up, but there's no telling what's going to happen in an election year. So it's very difficult to give a date. The date that matters to me is the date in which I laid out what I think is a reasonable plan, which was in January.
At least if it was President Kerry saying these things he'd have a "D" next to his name.
UPDATE: Sometimes Reuters is useful. Their report is entitled "Bush Gives Mexico's Fox Concession on Borders." (link).