Bush people considering making all Mexican illegals citizens.
July 14, 2001 4:09 PM   Subscribe

Bush people considering making all Mexican illegals citizens. Three million Mexican illegals to be made citizens under this possible move. Guess who they will vote for?
posted by Postroad (58 comments total)
 
Legal residency is not equal to citizenship.
posted by Humberto at 4:21 PM on July 14, 2001


As the article points out, at least part of the motivation behind such a move is to gain the support of Latino voters, but this proposal wouldn't instantly create a instant new bloc of Bush voters — aliens can't vote, no matter what their legal status. That privilege is reserved for U.S. citizens.
posted by barkingmoose at 4:43 PM on July 14, 2001


Nader wanted to something remotely the same. Would that have been a coldly calculated political move, too?

(I know what I think, I’m just testing perception versus rhetoric.)
posted by capt.crackpipe at 4:58 PM on July 14, 2001


sorry, can't read the article. can't make a comment.
posted by jcterminal at 5:11 PM on July 14, 2001


"Can't"? or won't?
posted by rodii at 5:14 PM on July 14, 2001


I posted this piece and have this to say:
1. If illegals gain legal status, then they are going to pay taxes and they are entitled to minimun wage--that is not helpful to those who use illegals for cheap labor.
2. If you were a member of, say a minority of people here illegally from China or Romania etc you would certainly have citizens of that group screaming like hell for equal treatment of your people. Why not make ALL legal residents?
posted by Postroad at 5:19 PM on July 14, 2001


sorry, i meant 'can't become an advertising statistic.'
posted by jcterminal at 5:19 PM on July 14, 2001


Postroad: You believe that this move would cause all of the new citizens to vote for Bush in the next election. I think it's kind of sad that an entire voting bloc can just be bought off like that. A voting populous of that quality does not bode well for America.

I suppose it's nothing new. In particular, the Democrats have been doing this to various constituencies for years. Still, it's a little sad that the American people have traded our original ideals of patriotism and a considered, thoughtful vote for selfish "pocketbook" voting.
posted by gd779 at 5:20 PM on July 14, 2001


sorry, i meant 'can't become an advertising statistic.'

don't become an advertising statistic. first, I understand from a NYT freelance writer that they may discontinue the whole thing because they're not doing anything with the info.

second, I think mefi/mefi might work.

third, I know that rebeccas_pocket/pocket works.

become one of a legion. we are borg. be one of the proud, the strong, the free. I am spartacus.
posted by rebeccablood at 5:33 PM on July 14, 2001


I suppose it's nothing new. In particular, the Democrats have been doing this to various constituencies for years.

Factionalism is as old as politics: parties represent parts.

If this move challenges the culture of blackmail associated with the employment of illegal immigrants, it can only be a good thing.
posted by holgate at 5:46 PM on July 14, 2001


I'm not so sure that the republicans will necessarily end up with a voting block. Here in California there's a long history of conservative republican immigrant bashing. Shamefully, there are also democrats doing the same thing just not as many or as loudly. Now the republicans probably look at Hispanic immigrants and see people who tend to be; religious, family oriented, and entrepreneurial but all those characteristics can play to the advantage of the democrats also. The problem is the distance between the republicans' image of themselves and their actions. I can think of no better example than Bush's attempts to woo spanish speaking voters by speaking spanish. I barely speak spanish but I know atrocious spanish when I hear it. If I were a native spanish speaker I'm guessing I would either be amused or disgusted by the patronizing assumption that pretending to be able to speak spanish is somehow going to get my vote. Of course I could be wrong and I would be happy to listen to differing views.
posted by rdr at 6:25 PM on July 14, 2001


I forgot to say one thing. Regardless of the motivation doing anything to change the silly system that makes huges numbers of workers illegal would be the right thing.
posted by rdr at 6:27 PM on July 14, 2001


I find it bewildering that any average American would criticize this proposal (as Postroad and the NYT appear to be doing) as a crass political move to steal Latino votes for Bush. Shouldn't we all applaud when the President does something right? Capt.crackpipe asked a good question--did everyone have the same reaction when Nader suggested a similar measure?

In this case, it's really the Democratic Leadership that is perpetuating holgate's "culture of blackmail." The real reason that the DNC is quietly opposing this move (see the article) is because Daschle & Co. are owned by Big Labor. Money talks, and 94% of the $85 million in political contributions made by Labor Unions in the 2000 election year went to Democrats. And if there's one thing that the Big Labor hates more than bloated corporate management, it's immigrants who compete for their jobs.

My point is this: when someone make a good move that helps the underprivileged, let's give them kudos. Hell, we should give more kudos when the "other side" does something right, since they're supposed to be the bad guys!

History teaches us a great lesson about this topic. Shortly after the civil war was over, President Lincoln was asked how the South should be treated. His answer: "Like they had never been away."

"But Mr. President," the questioner protested, "aren't we supposed to destroy our enemies?"

Mr. Lincoln's response: "Don't we destroy our enemies when we make them our friends?"
posted by nicolotesla at 6:38 PM on July 14, 2001


I can think of no better example than Bush's attempts to woo spanish speaking voters by speaking spanish.

Please. Speaking someone else's language is "patronizing"? Perhaps we should tell all of the Spanish language students in the country to stop studying. If anything is patronizing, it's that most Americans assume that everyone on the planet speaks English!

And by the way, we capitalize the names of languages (like "spanish [sic]") in English.
posted by nicolotesla at 6:46 PM on July 14, 2001


I can't see this as fair. People who go outside the rules of the system getting almost the same benefits as those who went through the existing application process? That just doesn't seem right.

I also applaud Bush for making the effort to speak Spanish (it's one of the few things he does better than Gore).
posted by owillis at 6:58 PM on July 14, 2001


He is proposing legal residency status, not citizenship. Big difference. I think the government is being realistic. Most of these people are law abiding people who would probably make better citizens that some native born Americans, IMHO.
posted by MAYORBOB at 7:14 PM on July 14, 2001


People who go outside the rules of the system getting almost the same benefits as those who went through the existing application process?

Now that, owillis, is a very good point. This type of a proposal needs to be conducted in a way that is not only fair to the people who "work hard," but also to those who "play by the rules."

I think the current situation is analogous to the Prohibition of alcohol in the 20s. In today's case, a large group of people had a strong desire to come to the US from Mexico, but US law said that it was illegal. Many thought the law was unfair and chose to come anyway. Just like Prohibition, there are two problems: (1) we shouldn't have had the law in the first place, and (2) breaking the law is a bad thing. The current proposal fixes the first problem, but it doesn't do anything about the second one.

This proposal needs to go hand-in-hand with a radical rethinking of immigration law. Immigration policy from the 1600s to the 1960s was based on fairness and openness (although immigrants usually found neither once they arrived). Since then, it's been based on Big Labor's desire to avoid competition for US jobs. That needs to change.
posted by nicolotesla at 7:25 PM on July 14, 2001


"Big Labor hates more than bloated corporate management, it's immigrants who compete for their jobs" Outsource, im thinking outsource (beat the union by reducing the jobs) The Lincoln was smashing.
posted by clavdivs at 7:27 PM on July 14, 2001


I would just like to say that nicolotesla's post up there is one of the best posts I've read on MeFi in some time, and exactly what I wanted to say, put ten times better. Thanks, Nicolo!
posted by fraying at 7:36 PM on July 14, 2001


It's evident from BushII's track record that this is move has been done with purely big-business interests in mind. Central American immigrants also have significant numbers in America. (Quick Google link to some figures)

Therefore if he were most interested in offering humanitarian concern to people who go for years without seeing their families, as it is too hard, the danger too great to traipse back and forth across the border, he'd have a de facto position on what constitutes dignified life. If he really wishes to dignify the hard, menial jobs these people do, he might begin with a strong stand against the maquiladoras that so many American manufacturers contract from just across the border. Then, to follow up with that unlikely turn at true, reasoned compassion he'd equally grant guest worker status to illegal immigrants, not seek to turn them into an artificial voting bloc. Also one might assume that if it were humanitarian concern that brought about this change in American provincialist, capitalist, conservative tune he (Bush) would also speak up about the arbitrary, token seeming, unfair bureaucracy that any Latino migrant worker must endure should he seek to gain residence here.

But he does none of that. True, it makes me excited that my friends and acquaintances will be able to go home and come back without fear of death and jail. But, this smacks of ultimate hypocrisy. One must ask how far back ex-CEO of Coca Cola Vicente Fox and Bush family interests go back. As why hasn't this been done sooner with other's who've had the power to do so? Why does it also seem to coincide with deals being cut for cheap, unregulated Mexican power production--the kind that no average Mexican citizen would ever be able to benefit from? Nary a Mexican has the means to invest in the energy market. No ordinary Mexican has the means to speak up against Americans and the conceding Mexican government officials who are profiting from the unhealthful byproducts of energy produced in their own neighborhood sent north of the border. Indeed how can they? 80% of Mexico's population is wondering if they're going to have something other than frijoles y tortillas to eat.
posted by crasspastor at 8:08 PM on July 14, 2001


Immigration policy from the 1600s to the 1960s was based on fairness and openness

Not that I don't agree with most of the rest of what you said, nicolotesla, but that is inaccurate. The US had very restrictive immigration quotas from at least 1921 (which were, admittedly, cut back somewhat in the 1930s). The quotas were in part based on keeping out cheap labor, but also had a lot to do with the desire to keep the US predominantly Northern European.
posted by fidelity at 8:16 PM on July 14, 2001


The quotas were in part based on keeping out cheap labor, but also had a lot to do with the desire to keep the US predominantly Northern European.

Fidelity, you are quite right. My statement is incorrect. My generalization is too general, and skims over several notable exceptions (the policy towards Asians in California during the late 1800s is another good one). My general point was that the US has been far more open to immigration in the past, and should be again. But your point is well taken.

I don't want to hog the thread, but I feel compelled to comment on crasspastor's remarks to correct a few of his/her's factual inaccuracies. I'll leave a critique of his/her ideas to others.

It's evident from BushII's track record that this is move has been done with purely big-business interests in mind. Central American immigrants also have significant numbers in America. (Quick Google link to some figures)

I would respectfully suggest a closer reading of your link. The fifth line of the article notes that the author considers Mexico to be part of Central America, and that the nation make up the largest single group of Central American Latinos. So, technically, Bush is doing exactly what you suggest.

One must ask how far back ex-CEO of Coca Cola Vicente Fox and Bush family interests go back.

Vincente Fox was never CEO of Coca Cola (sorry if I'm being patronizing by linking to a Spanish language website). He did run Mexican and Latin American operations for Coca Cola, as president of that division. That's probably what you're referring to.

Nary a Mexican has the means to invest in the energy market.

Quite incorrect. Mexico is certainly not the most wealthy nation on the planet, but there are at least some people who can afford to make investments and/or purchase electrical power. I'd suggest that you check out some demographics.

No ordinary Mexican has the means to speak up against Americans

You might want to direct them to their popularly-elected government, or perhaps their unregulated media. That might be a good start. Or try protesting. If all else fails, they could call CNN. I'm sure it would make a good story.

80% of Mexico's population is wondering if they're going to have something other than frijoles y tortillas to eat.

I assume you're eggagerating to help strengthen your point. If not, check out the demographics again.
posted by nicolotesla at 8:56 PM on July 14, 2001


Let me make this clear. Bush to my ears doesn't speak spanish. He mangles it. Maybe what I'm hearing is his texas accent. Maybe I just heard the wrong audio clips. As for the patronizing part it's patronizing to presume that just because you speak someone's first language they're going to vote for you. Do you really think people are that dumb?
posted by rdr at 10:03 PM on July 14, 2001


I didn't write:

No ordinary Mexican has the means to speak up against Americans

I wrote:

No ordinary Mexican has the means to speak up against Americans and the conceding Mexican government officials who are profiting from the unhealthful byproducts of energy produced in their own neighborhood sent north of the border.

True, simple use of the word "Americans" as to who Mexicans cannot speak up against is vague. I blurted the whole thing out right before I ran out the door. In lieu of you pointing that out, it should read:

No ordinary Mexican has the means to speak up against American corporate policy and its concessions by a transnational business friendly government. . .or something to that effect.

You might want to direct them to their popularly-elected government, or perhaps their unregulated media. That might be a good start. Or try protesting. If all else fails, they could call CNN. I'm sure it would make a good story.

Aside from the obviousness of quoting that portion of my post out of context, you've found yourself attacking a the strawman that you built. The Mexican government for the better portion of the last century has never been "popularly elected". I would also surmise that the election and quasi-revolution of ousting the PRI by electing Vicente Fox has more to do with massive multinational financial support for his administration rather than an educated grassroots citizens campaign for change. It's interesting; as why has the PRI been perennially more publically concerned with human rights abuses of migrant workers than Fox's own PAN party? (Link a third of the way down)

An uregulated media:
I suppose Mexicans are equally as objectively informed as the unenlightened internet user in the US is?

I assume you're eggagerating to help strengthen your point. If not, check out the demographics again.

I didn't state that 80% go hungry or are starving (Though if one searched enough one could find those figures ). I'm referring to buying power , what one is able to do with the money they earn (Won't even go into where hard earned Pesos are increasingly going Hint: Waltons It's not always the Waltons Mexican economy Waltons.) I know that I don't have the money to afford lobster dinner every night, let alone yet once a month and my buying power is greatly less than that of someone who makes just twice of what I make (25-30000 a year). To say that the average (80% or more) Mexican has it within his wherewithall to eat anything his heart desires or let alone has the savings on hand to invest in the energy industry is even more completely unfounded than if one were to say the same of the lower class of the United States.
posted by crasspastor at 10:30 PM on July 14, 2001


One more thing:

Quite incorrect. Mexico is certainly not the most wealthy nation on the planet, but there are at least some people who can afford to make investments and/or purchase electrical power.

Notice what you wrote there? You've misrepresented my argument and then responded to a point I did not make. Notice again how I wrote:

No ordinary Mexican has the means to speak up against Americans and the conceding Mexican government officials who are profiting from the unhealthful byproducts of energy produced in their own neighborhood sent north of the border.

You answer that with:

but there are at least some people who can afford to make investments

And then finally:

Who said anything about "purchasing" personal electricity? I never made that assumption. Clearly I was referring to profiting off of others purchasing energy from a corporation that one owns stock in.

And then upon further thought, regarding your reasoning (though I was wrong about Fox being the CEO of CC) and then posting to the Mexican government's website (which happens to have been bookmarked in my browser), when you could have easily pointed to this English version of the same website does seem somewhat patronizing. Like, "I understand Spanish, therefore I'm making the strongest argument." Kind of like Bush uttering a trite "Si" in a an earlier press conference that really pissed me off.
posted by crasspastor at 11:07 PM on July 14, 2001


posting to the Mexican government's website

Linking
what
was
i
thinking?
posted by crasspastor at 11:11 PM on July 14, 2001


Then, to follow up with that unlikely turn at true, reasoned compassion he'd equally grant guest worker status to illegal immigrants, not seek to turn them into an artificial voting bloc.

There's no artifical voting bloc here. Residency status does not equal citizenship.

-the kind that no average Mexican citizen would ever be able to benefit from? Nary a Mexican has the means to invest in the energy market.

Sorry, crasspastor, your exaggerations are clearly getting the better of you here. There's not a SINGLE Mexican who can afford to invest in energy stocks. Not one?
posted by ljromanoff at 11:43 PM on July 14, 2001


What part of "NO ORDINARY MEXICAN. . ." doesn't make sense?
posted by crasspastor at 11:46 PM on July 14, 2001


Residency status does not equal citizenship.

Uhh yeah. I think it's already been said here that it would color the Latinos who already are citizens, political affiliation so that it would in fact, create an artificial voting bloc. Because, as I quickly alluded to above, if BushII gave a whit about them he'd also qualify such an action with other pro "ordinary" Mexican citizen stances.
posted by crasspastor at 12:17 AM on July 15, 2001


What owillis said.

I'm a UK citizen who applied for permanent US residency (based on marriage to a US citizen) nearly two years ago. Despite being a completely uncomplicated case as far as the INS is concerned, and having jumped through endless bureaucratic hoops to get this far, my case remains "pending". Depending on circumstance, one must wait between three and five years after becoming a permanent resident before its possible even to apply for citizenship (which can then take a further couple of years), assuming one qualifies.

Its obvious to anyone who has to cope with the INS that it is a massively under-resourced department of government. Several million more qualified residency applicants, wherever they're from, aren't going to make it any better.
posted by normy at 12:34 AM on July 15, 2001


[all this stuff is re: crasspastor's comments]

No ordinary Mexican has the means to speak up against American corporate policy and its concessions by a transnational business friendly government. . .or something to that effect.

I don't know why some people assume that everyone in the world is just aching to speak out against "transnational business friendly" governments but they just don't have the means. Some "ordinary" Mexicans do speak up against those sort of things, actually. It gets air time and press space and it gets repeatedly discussed in the Congress. At the end of the day, however, most Mexicans don't oppose the "transnational business friendly" policies or are at least willing to give them a chance.

I would also surmise that the election and quasi-revolution of ousting the PRI by electing Vicente Fox has more to do with massive multinational financial support [link] for his administration rather than an educated grassroots citizens campaign for change.

That's one very poor article you linked to. I would like to point out all the errors, but in the interest of time and relevancy I'll just mention a few. The writer of the article makes it sound like he's uncovering a big secret with his name-dropping of businessmen, but the fact that Fox and the PAN are pro-business was never a secret, and in fact it was a big part of his campaign platform. Should we be surprised and shocked that the entepreneurial class would ally themselves with a candidate that offered to streamline the bureucracy and encourage trade and investment? The article also makes it sound like Fox had a multinational-funded media blitz on his side, but there was plenty of advertising from all sides during the election. His opposition pulled out all the dirt they could, but the voters (including your elusive "ordinary Mexican", and including myself as well) made their choice.

It's interesting; as why has the PRI been perennially more publically (sic) concerned with human rights abuses of migrant workers than Fox's own PAN party? (Link a third of the way down)

It's an "interesting" observation only if you have little knowledge of Mexican politics, as seems to be the case with you. The PRI has always been a populist party. In reality it always screwed the poor of course, but there was seldom lack of public "concern". And as far as your link is concerned, not only is it vague, but it dates from a month before the election. Since the start of the new administration, the government has clearly made migrants a top priority.

One must ask how far back ex-CEO of Coca Cola Vicente Fox and Bush family interests go back. Why does it also seem to coincide with deals being cut for cheap, unregulated Mexican power production--the kind that no average Mexican citizen would ever be able to benefit from? Nary a Mexican has the means to invest in the energy market.

What's with all the conspiracy theories? First you have multinationals rigging the election and then you hint at secret links between the Bush family and Vicente Fox. I'm also curious about why you repeatedly bring up the energy market, especially in an immigration discussion. I would refute your statement that "no average Mexican citizen" would benefit from cheap power production. For one thing, the Mexican electricity market is in very dire straits. 50 billion dollars in investment are needed over the next 10 years to keep up with domestic demand. So the average Mexican definitely benefits in the sense that there will be enough power to light his home and power his workplace and the rest of the country. If you mean that few Mexicans will buy stock in power companies, then that's true, but few Americans buy stock in American power companies as well. Even so, Mexicans are unwitting investors in the energy market since most of it is state-owned. Without investment, it is the ordinary Mexican and his taxes who will end up financing its deficiencies.

I suppose Mexicans are equally as objectively informed as the unenlightened internet user in the US is?

Well, if we take you to be an example of the unenlightened Internet user in the US, then yes. Anyone in Mexico who even glances at a newspaper or watches the news once in a while will hear about all the issues you've mentioned here, and probably be a lot more informed about them than you are. Yes, even the "80%" who you say are "wondering if they're going to have something other than frijoles y tortillas to eat". By the way, don't mess with frijoles and tortillas.
posted by Humberto at 1:22 AM on July 15, 2001


Malarkey like Bush's proposal shouldn't come up. Free trade should include the right to trade one's labor by moving across a border temporarily, working on the other side, and sending all earnings (minus normal taxes) back home.

If Nafta were a real free-trade agreement, all Mexicans would be able to legally work in Chicago or Toronto, all Canadians would be able to live and work in Los Angeles and Mexico City, and all Americans would be able to live and work in Montreal and Guadalajara.
posted by pracowity at 4:20 AM on July 15, 2001


all Canadians would be able to live and work in Los Angeles

Assuming, of course, that they had temporarily lost all sense of reason and actually wanted to live in LA...

I know of two couples in the precise situation Normy's in - foreign national married to US citizen, Kafkaesque delays in getting permanent residence status - and many, many technical people dealing with the whole "green card / should I stay or should I go" nightmare. I find it deeply offensive that individuals who entered the US illegally would be granted some kind of blanket immunity for their crime, while those who have pursued their cases through legal channels will be left to continue twisting in the wind...
posted by m.polo at 7:15 AM on July 15, 2001


"Free trade should include the right to trade one's labor by moving across a border temporarily, working on the other side, and sending all earnings (minus normal taxes) back home." Migrant worker. Im thinkin Migrant worker."so what if Fox was a coke exec. 'did he want to sell sugar water all his life' (ya i know, gabacho loco)
posted by clavdivs at 7:30 AM on July 15, 2001


I find it deeply offensive that individuals who entered the US illegally would be granted some kind of blanket immunity for their crime,

Perhaps you wouldn't have been so offended if you had read enough of the article to notice the part which specifically said that Bush opposed a blanket immunity.
posted by Humberto at 10:57 AM on July 15, 2001


Immunity for anyone who's committed this crime, blanket or otherwise, is offensive to me. Playing word games doesn't change the fact that Mexican criminals are being offered legal residence status whilst others who have attempted to gain entry into the US via legal routes are not being afforded the same opportunity. Whether it's all Mexican criminals, or just some Mexican criminals, the fact remains that that's what they are and I'm remain offended that we'd give them beneficial treatment.
posted by m.polo at 1:25 PM on July 15, 2001


I don't know why some people assume that everyone in the world is just aching to speak out against "transnational business friendly" governments but they just don't have the means. Some "ordinary" Mexicans do speak up against those sort of things, actually. It gets air time and press space and it gets repeatedly discussed in the Congress. At the end of the day, however, most Mexicans don't oppose the "transnational business friendly" policies or are at least willing to give them a chance.

The reason why anyone, anywhere would speak out against transnational business friendly governments is because there are real issues concerning labor, compensation for that labor, environmental issues etc. that those businesses rarely find to be as important as the business itself. Therefore, because writ large, this furor does not happen in Mexico, (nor particularly in America Ya WTO protestin' kooks) I'm assuming your position is that it shouldn't be addressed at all. Yet, you go on to say that it is a concern to people in Mexico and the people are fully informed on those concessions that their government makes with corporations purely looking to unlock profit potential in the previously largely untapped Mexican economy. Also, you're intimating, it's not an issue there ("Been there done that") because the people have at their disposal fair and exacting journalism and have found few problems that they may have had with why an adjacent economy to the world's wealthiest and robust economy has eternally done so much more poorly. All the while, millions (to this date) of their own continue to pour across the border in search of financial sustenance for themselves and their families. There clearly isn't a problem there, I'm assuming most of your particular Mexicans feel. Of course nothing to be addressed, that there exists such a major economic disparity between two neighboring nations. And if they don't care about it (though there are idiots who do, me being one) then hardly can we expect them to fully ask the fundamental questions of why there would be this unbalance at all. Which, I submit, is big business. Americans, a miniscule, miniscule portion of Mexico's economic elite and other savvy brokers are the parties profiting off of the hard earned, ordinary Mexican's peso. An individual's money, just as here to a smaller degree, rarely goes back into the local economy. Which is the whole idea of a corporation and its investors "unlocking" profit in a place like Mexico or Thailand or anywhere for that matter.

That's one very poor article you linked to. I would like to point out all the errors, but in the interest of time and relevancy I'll just mention a few.

Perhaps you could show me what a good article is next time around. For now, I'll assume a "good" article is one you agree with.

The writer of the article makes it sound like he's uncovering a big secret with his name-dropping of businessmen, but the fact that Fox and the PAN are pro-business was never a secret, and in fact it was a big part of his campaign platform.

If you were to point out the article's errors, why didn't you start with pointing an error out? Here, you've merely underscored my exact point. One either cares that corporate lobby influences social and domestic affairs or they do not. You've only elucidated your political affiliation here, humberto.

Since the start of the new administration, the government has clearly made migrants a top priority.

Yes, true. Only with massive big business concessions in accord with the ""big business friendly"" Bush administration. Such as the energy issue, which as the idiot you're trying so hard to paint me as, I've been inexplicably bringing up. The link goes back a little ways, but it's still important that these were the issues on the docket when Bush visited Mexico in February.

What's with all the conspiracy theories? First you have multinationals rigging the election and then you hint at secret links between the Bush family and Vicente Fox.

Is it that much outside of your ken that multinational corps work extremely hard to get their guy in office? It's happening here. In fact it's also happening in Mexico. I didn't say anything about anyone "rigging" Mexico's last presidential elections. Therefore why must you use language that mitigates the point that I made? Who said anything about "secret links" between Bush and Fox either? Though, it is well known that Bush's knowledge of Mexico has come directly from his own business interests in that country by way of the people in Mexico he's done business with, either as the governor or as civilian.

Well, if we take you to be an example of the unenlightened Internet user in the US, then yes.

Mind if I submit that you're a serious prickface asshole? Great. 'Cause I just did. You're an asshole. Not a great comeback I know. Obviously, what I meant by the "unenlightened internet user", is that the internet has been hailed as the great equalizer. One is not solely dependent on TV and radio for their news, with this great little medium, the internet. Though this link is seemingly non-beneficial to my ongoing argument, as the PRI did spend more money in the last election than did Fox, it may help to clear up a bit where the still so very ordinary Mexican citizen gets his news. And just for the record, I was never defending the wholesale corruption of the PRI down through the years. I was merely pointing out, that if we're to talk corruption in Mexico (of which the PRI is well known for), we can also safely assume that very pro-corp Fox may also be ripe for the picking. Considering that, in many ways, when corporate interests play first chair in a government, much money and lavish gifts are to be had by those in office who help out
posted by crasspastor at 1:41 PM on July 15, 2001


Furthermore. . . Corpwatch's figures on why corporate finagling in countries' domestic affairs should be a no no and how none of it benefits ordinary anybodys.
posted by crasspastor at 2:35 PM on July 15, 2001


From crasspastor to Humberto: "Mind if I submit that you're a serious prickface asshole? Great. 'Cause I just did. You're an asshole. Not a great comeback I know."

It's really a shame that those words jumped out at me before I read the rest of your post. It's a shame because your argument (and your delivery) have been improving with each successive post. Oh, well. I guess I'll have to discount your comments as the rantings of an extremist.

I would like to thank you for providing a shining example of exactly the type of person I was talking about in my original post.

You've really done me a great service by helping to prove my point. As we can all see from your last post, there are a set of extremists out there who divide the world into two groups: enemies and friends. Friends are always right, and enemies are always wrong. And, in this great struggle of theirs, they feel morally compelled to use any means necessary to make their point--from exaggeration to defensiveness to misrepresentation of facts to ad hominem attacks. My kindergarten teacher told me that I didn't have to call people names to get my point across. I guess you had a different kindergarten teacher.

Well, friend, have fun trying to destroy your enemies and ignoring Mr. Lincoln's example. I, for one, will no longer be listening to your viewpoint.

Go ahead. Call me an asshole. I've been insulted by people who are far better at it than you are, and for far better reason. Just know this: Humberto, Mr. Bush, Coca Cola, and everyone else you seem to think is allied in a multinational conspiracy are not the bad guys. There are no bad guys, crasspastor. Only good guys who can't get along.
posted by nicolotesla at 2:36 PM on July 15, 2001


It's really a shame that those words jumped out at me before I read the rest of your post. It's a shame because your argument (and your delivery) have been improving with each successive post. Oh, well. I guess I'll have to discount your comments as the rants of an extremist.

An extremist of what? Are all progressive politics extreme? I was highly warranted to use any language I wished, for example calling humberto a "prickface asshole". Perhaps, coming from someone who excels at patronizing as prose, this shouldn't get me too riled. Did you happen to notice his direct statement to me, which incited me to write what ultimately looked like the rant of someone with the maturity of a kindergartner?

You've not proven a point nor have I helped you to do so. I spelled out why I suspect Bush would consider these actions with Mexico and that I find them to be disingenuous. What else can one do who disagrees with this case of means justifying the end other than state his case? As I've done and promptly been labeled an extremist who's viewpoint will no longer be "listened to". I've described why I felt that my case being called "exaggerated" was itself in error. Not only will you not be "listening to (me)" in the future, but you haven't listened to me yet.

Go ahead. Call me an asshole. I've been insulted by people who are far better at it than you are, and for far better reason. Just know this: Humberto, Mr. Bush, Coca Cola, and everyone else you seem to think is allied in a multinational conspiracy are not the bad guys. There are no bad guys, crasspastor. Only good guys who can't get along.

Aside from your expert pretentiousness, what are you exactly trying to say?
posted by crasspastor at 2:58 PM on July 15, 2001


I do sincerely apologize if you found my tone to be pretentious. That was not my intent. Please accept my perceived pretentiousness as a consequence of my writing style and not as a sign of disrespect.

That said, my comments about your attack on Humberto stand. I will not dignify your latest questions with a response, because I will not conduct a civilized debate with someone who will not do the same.

If you would like to continue this debate (and I would actually like to respond to your points), then I suggest that apologize to Humberto for your name calling, get over it, and let your ideas stand on their own.
posted by nicolotesla at 3:19 PM on July 15, 2001


"...If you are unhappy and disappointed and down on your luck, then all the more reason why you should seek the companionship and support of your loyal friends. Indeed, if the whole world were against you, the more firmly would they cling to you"

a letter from Katherine Johnson to Nikola Tesla, December 20, 1903.
posted by clavdivs at 3:29 PM on July 15, 2001


What part of "NO ORDINARY MEXICAN. . ." doesn't make sense?

The part where you suggest that no ordinary Mexican can buy energy stocks. If I were to lower myself to your usual tactics I would claim this sort of generalization was racist, but since I don't intend to do that I'll just say that it's pretty ignorant.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:50 PM on July 15, 2001


[re: crasspastor]

Mind if I submit that you're a serious prickface asshole? Great. 'Cause I just did. You're an asshole. Not a great comeback I know.

I guess I don't mind. If you want to dilute the validity of your arguments with kindergarten-level insults, that's very much your choice.

I'm assuming your position is that it shouldn't be addressed at all...There clearly isn't a problem there, I'm assuming most of your particular Mexicans feel...You've only elucidated your political affiliation here, humberto.

I think nicolotesla nailed it right on the head. You've divided the world into friends and enemies. Since I disagreed with you, not only am I a "serious prickface asshole", but I must also be one of the people who don't care. 'Cause if I did care, I would have to side with you, right? After just one post, you alread have a big ol' straw man set up to represent me.

There is at least some truth to several of the points you mentioned before. What really annoys me is the way you bend and distort very complex issues to push your anti-big business message, but you're right in the sense that everything is far from rosy. Your links are a similar mixed bag. Anyway, I think we've strayed enough from the immigration topic, so this will be my last comment on that matter.

[re: m.polo]

Despite your somewhat unsettling references to "Mexican criminals" I suppose you're technically right. From the standpoint of all who take the legal route, which includes a lot of Mexicans, it doesn't seem fair. However, the different costs and the benefits should be taken into account. You can follow the law exactly as it is now, and have hundreds of thousands working under unregulated conditions, untaxed and exploited and probably not going back home. On the other hand you can reform the system in a way which gradually will allow some of those who have been working for a long time, have family ties, etc. to legalize their situation. Even the most ardent anti-immigration supporters would agree that some people probably do deserve this, the real question is how many and under which conditions.
posted by Humberto at 4:19 PM on July 15, 2001


ousting the PRI by electing Vicente Fox has more to do with massive multinational financial support for his administration rather than an educated grassroots citizens campaign for change

Bull-fucking-shit the Mexicans didn't know what they were doing when they cast a vote for PAN. Vicente Fox is the savior of Mexico, as far as I'm concerned. A fairly elected PAN president after 71 years of corrupt power. A business man who has more insight on how to help the economy than any other PRI appointed president. Trust me -- a Coca-cola aligned president is much better than a military aligned one.

I find it deeply offensive that individuals who entered the US illegally would be granted some kind of blanket immunity for their crime...

What choice do they have? Can you imagine how heartbreaking it is to live only a few miles south of the border, but know that your children will never be able to have the prosperity that is a birthright to those born only a few miles north?

Mexicans can't receive residency in the US unless they have a relative in the US. I think America has a moral obligation to either help the Mexican economy it benefits so much from, or to lax immigration laws for Mexicans.
posted by jennak at 4:21 PM on July 15, 2001


"but know that your children will never be able to have the prosperity that is a birthright to"

PLEASE. your yanking ability for a person to excel, to overcome hardship by saying they have "no choice", excuse me "what little choice to they have"
posted by clavdivs at 6:37 PM on July 15, 2001


Can you imagine how heartbreaking it is to live only a few miles south of the border, but know that your children will never be able to have the prosperity that is a birthright to those born only a few miles north?

Um, okay. Except that you ought to swap "north" for "south": it's the border cities on the Mexican side that are experiencing economic growth right now, at the expense of cities in Texas and New Mexico, because US industries have shifted production south of the border to take advantage of the lower labour costs.

As for Fox: he has the potential to earn his place in history, both by rescuing the economy and spearheading a settlement with the EZLN. Perhaps that's too much to ask of any leader, especially in Latin America, where great expectations have historically been followed by greater disappointments. (Fujimori, Collor, etc.) We shall see.

The part where you suggest that no ordinary Mexican can buy energy stocks. If I were to lower myself to your usual tactics I would claim this sort of generalization was racist, but since I don't intend to do that I'll just say that it's pretty ignorant.

ljr: this is me playing devil's advocate here, but can you name a publically-traded Mexican energy company? I googled around for one for a few minutes, and nothing obvious turned up: instead, I found this US DOE report noting that, apart from limited private investment in gas extraction and generation, it's all under the (state) control of PEMEX. And that the limited private investment comes from foreign-owned corporations.

Oh, and this cached report from the Pacific Council says that "Close to 50% of Americans are involved in the stock market compared with barely 5% of Mexicans, and foreigners account for 44% of ownership and 80% of trading on the Mexican stock market." Which pretty much suggests that "ordinary Mexicans" don't own any kind of stocks, let alone energy stocks in non-existant companies.

Just a suggestion: before you call others "ignorant", based upon your own preconceptions, do some research.
posted by holgate at 8:39 PM on July 15, 2001


In the interest of fairness, I ought to note that crasspastor was very lucky to say "energy stocks", and had he said "telco", "retail" or anything else, the anomoly wouldn't have applied. That said, the concentration of Mexico's late 90s stock-market boom (and bust) in the hands of a small percentage of the population, fuelled by privatisation of state entities, is one reason why Fox was elected: to encourage the extension of that capitalisation of national wealth to all Mexicans.
posted by holgate at 8:49 PM on July 15, 2001


"anomaly". (It's late, thinking in greek.)
posted by holgate at 9:12 PM on July 15, 2001


I find it deeply offensive that individuals who entered the US illegally would be granted some kind of blanket immunity for their crime...

What choice do they have?


Leave the United States, return to Mexico and then apply to enter the United States legally along with the countless others from around the world who would also like to come here. In case it has escaped your notice, they're called illegal aliens because they are in this country illegally... That they have some vision of a better life in the US is no different from - and merits no greater weight than - someone from Serbia, from Pakistan, from any other place on earth. I'm not quite cynical enough yet that I've lost all sense of the value of living in the US, but the fact that someone lives "a few miles south of the border" doesn't make it heartbreaking to me; it makes them "not Americans" who'd like a shot at coming here. Great. Get in line.
posted by m.polo at 10:14 PM on July 15, 2001


Jesus save me. This is the most I've ever focused on one thread in my stint here on Mefi, but every last bit of what I've written, my entire argument, has been negated ignored and marginalized by language painting me as an extremist, a person emotionally tried and henceforth breaking to the point of calling a fellow poster a name. That name I used to express my frustration at humberto's patent conceit that "I know nothing of Mexico", nor anything really at all of which I spoke of, suddenly became more important than the hundreds of words I used to demonstrate valid points, surrounding that. Nothing can be more frustrating. Yet nevertheless, the struggle for equality (enter what kind here) goes on.
posted by crasspastor at 2:21 AM on July 16, 2001


> I think America has a moral obligation to either help
> the Mexican economy it benefits so much from, or to
> [re]lax immigration laws for Mexicans.

That doesn't make sense, not unless the US is also obliged to accept everyone else from whom it profits, and not unless all of those countries in return owe the US, because they certainly profit from selling goods to the US. Are those other countries obliged to let US citizens become their citizens?

Open the border, but only if it goes both ways and on equal terms.
posted by pracowity at 4:20 AM on July 16, 2001


ljr: this is me playing devil's advocate here, but can you name a publically-traded Mexican energy company?

No I can't. I think you are correct that there are none. However, a Mexican investor is not limited to stock in his own nation is he? My point remains that crasspastor is wildly generalizing when he paints the Mexican people as de-facto slaves to a multi-national corporate tyranny, as he so loves to do.

I googled around for one for a few minutes

Off topic here, but I like 'google' as a verb.

5% of Mexicans, and foreigners account for 44% of ownership and 80% of trading on the Mexican stock market." Which pretty much suggests that "ordinary Mexicans" don't own any kind of stocks, let alone energy stocks in non-existant companies.

Well, there's no one arguing that Mexico is still a fairly poor country. Decades of nationalized industry and political corruption will do that to you. In any event, your statistic disproves crasspastor's ridiculous assertion that: "Nary a Mexican has the means to invest in the energy market" They obviously have the means (if not the opportunity) to invest in the Mexican energy market, and they certain have both the means and the opportunity to invest in international energy market.

And as small as it is, it would appear from your data that the average Mexican investor does make up a certain percentage (20%) of stock trading. Presuambly that will rise closer to U.S. levels assuming Mexico's GDP rises over the next few years.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:19 AM on July 16, 2001


Jesus save me. This is the most I've ever focused on one thread in my stint here on Mefi, but every last bit of what I've written, my entire argument, has been negated ignored and marginalized by language painting me as an extremist ... Yet nevertheless, the struggle for equality (enter what kind here) goes on.

You know, I can just see you hunched over a computer in a dark room with "The Internationale" blasting on the stereo as you typed this.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:23 AM on July 16, 2001


Except that you ought to swap "north" for "south": it's the border cities on the Mexican side that are experiencing economic growth right now

"Economic growth" apparently doesn't translate into Mexican Spanish. I'm going home next week, and I see these towns with my own eyes. Are they doing better than they were six years ago? Sure. Do most people having running water and electricity? I don't think so.

Leave the United States, return to Mexico and then apply to enter the United States legally along with the countless others from around the world who would also like to come here.

They're not allowed in. Ever. They could stand in that line their whole lives but will never make it in unless they are lucky enough to have an immediate family member that somehow made it into the US legally.
posted by jennak at 7:07 AM on July 16, 2001


However, a Mexican investor is not limited to stock in his own nation is he?

I wouldn't be so confident: it's still tricky for Europeans to own US stock outright. And that's part of the problem: the liberalisation of the energy market has undoubtedly brought external investment into plant and infrastructure, but it also takes much of the profit out of the country. "Competition" is between US, European and Asian-based companies, not Mexican ones.

Presumably that will rise closer to U.S. levels assuming Mexico's GDP rises over the next few years.

To some extent, although not necessarily to US levels: US stock ownership remains anomalous in the developed world (7% of households in Germany; 11% in France, 18% in the UK, 28% in the US) and the past few years have suggested that the rush to be fully invested in equities might have been somewhat overindulgent.

crasspastor's basic premise is still fairly accurate: that the equities market in Mexico, expanded by various privatisations, has actually been a tool for enriching those rich enough to buy stock in the first place. Undoubtedly, one way to address this is to remove other layers of regulation, but it's also by ensuring that state assets, if they are to be privatised, are done so in a way that provides long-term benefit for Mexicans. And I think Fox might just be the man for the job.
posted by holgate at 7:22 AM on July 16, 2001


They're not allowed in. Ever. They could stand in that line their whole lives but will never make it in unless they are lucky enough to have an immediate family member that somehow made it into the US legally.

And I presume there are valid reasons for the policy. Where do you get of simply assuming that the United States has to bear the burden of Mexico's economic problems? Perhaps you have a different definition and valuation of the words "illegal" and "criminal," but quite frankly, someone who would knowingly and willingly break the law isn't someone to whom I'd be real excited about offering legal residency or citizenship.
posted by m.polo at 8:49 AM on July 16, 2001


Couldn't there be other ways to lax immigration laws than this? As bad as it is in Mexico, America could not handle the influx of Mexican citizens wanting to work here. America's economic prosperity greatly affects Mexico's. I think we make up about 25% of Mexico's economy. Rather than having open season allowing anyone who can sneak across the border, couldn't we just up the allowed greencards for Mexican immigrants?

This policy seems short sighted. Alot of Mexican illegal immigrants are working as hard as they can, only to send most of the money back home to Mexico. Birds of Passage immigrants I think they're refered to. They are more willing to take lower wages and work under worse conditions.

These type of workers are bad for labor and good for corporations. They are in such need for money, and are not planning for the long term. They do not organize and push for wages or better conditions. They are more willing to work as scabs and undermine union negotiations.

I am not trying to classify all Mexicans this way. Please do not misunderstand me. However as far as I can see, this type of legislation would appeal more to a 'bird-of-passage' immigrant, rather than bringing an influx of potential citizens that would be around long enough to care about change.
posted by witchycal at 11:34 AM on July 17, 2001


« Older Compulsory HIV testing: Hadn't considered that
  |   So maybe rolling blackouts are a good thing. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments