What Americans Should Know About Immigration and President Fox of Mexico
By Allan E. Wall

FrontPageMagazine.com | February 12, 2001

THE ELECTORAL TRIUMPH of Vicente Fox as Mexico's president has blown
through the body politic like a breath of fresh air, shaking up the status quo and
giving hope for those desiring change. And after 71 years of one-party PRI rule,
such a change was certainly in order. As an American who has lived and worked in
Mexico since 1991, I was glad to see Fox win. My Mexican wife and her relatives
voted for him. I even sent an encouraging email to candidate Fox.

Fox has challenged long-standing shibboleths of
Mexican politics, and looks set to sweep out a lot of cobwebs. The new
Mexican president wants to root out corruption and put the Mexican
economy on a solid footing to benefit all its citizens. Fox has renounced
the paternalism of the past, has recognized that economic productivity is
of more value than populist-oriented decrees and that the only funds government has at its disposal
come from the people, and seeks to empower small and medium-sized businesses. I believe that in all
these challenges Fox has the sympathy and best wishes of the American people, as I know he has has
mine.

However, the American people should also be aware of Fox's stance on immigration. On the one
hand, he has correctly asserted that the real problem lies in the Mexican economy, and that it must
provide jobs for Mexicans so they don't leave the country to seek employment. Fox has also
recognized that the PRI was utilizing the U.S.A. as a "safety valve."

But in contradiction to such positive points, Fox has fallen into the same old trap of the PRI of utilizing
the U.S. as a safety valve - and all evidence indicates that he will attempt to expand the safety valve.
In fact, Fox not only wishes to increase Mexican immigration to the U.S., but he himself wishes to
control U.S. immigration policy, as it relates to Mexicans. Vicente Fox plans to manage the INS!

Americans should understand that it is they, not Vicente Fox, who should have control over U.S.
immigration policy. This is extremely relevant now, since this Friday, February 16th, Bush and Fox are
scheduled to meet at the latter's ranch here in Mexico, with immigration on the agenda (possibly at the
top of the agenda). President Bush, though we admire him for many good qualities and proposals,
seems to have done little, if any, serious thinking on important questions of immigration and
assimilation. His whole approach to such matters seems rather to be based on sentimental slogans and
wishful thinking. (During the primary Bush inadvertently revealed that he didn't even know how the
U.S. immigration system functions!). The very real danger is that our president, with such a muddled
outlook, could come away from the summit having, in effect, turned U.S. immigration policy over to
the Mexican government without considering the will of the American people.

So what immigration policies does Fox plan to impose on Bush? Earlier proposals of open borders
and an EU-style political arrangement were temporarily shelved as being too far-fetched. Or were
they? The truth is, Fox is still working toward open borders by other means. The Mexican government
has announced that it will ask for more visas for Mexican workers (Mexicans already receive more
U.S. visas than any other nationality). Fox also promises to push Bush for yet another illegal alien
amnesty (which is presently under consideration in Congress anyway). Fox says that illegal aliens
should be amnestied so they can receive the "education and health benefits they deserve." Deserve?
For what, being illegal aliens? And, in a recent visit by American senators led by Phil Gramm, Fox and
his U.S. collaborators cooked up a massive "guest worker" scheme which, incredibly enough, Gramm
asserts will end illegal immigration. None of the backers of such proposals, of either country, have
paid much heed to the idea that the American citizen-taxpayer might have any stake in the matter. And
that's a shame, because what is really at stake is U.S. sovereignty itself.

A bigger picture of Fox's immigration plans can be afforded by studying the statements of three key
Cabinet members: Jorge Castaneda, Juan Hernandez and Adolfo Aguilar-Zinser. These three men,
like most if not all the members of Fox's cabinet (and Fox himself) are white Mexicans. And this fact
could be significant. In Mexico, the higher one travels up the socioeconomic ladder, the whiter the
people are. And the reverse is true - the lower one goes down the socioeconomic ladder, the
darker-skinned the people are. In the Mexican media, any American who supports a restriction on
immigration is accused of being "racist." I suggest we turn the "racist" question around and see if
Mexico's white elite might have any "racist" motives. An objective observer might accuse the white
Mexican elite of cynically using the U.S. as a dumping ground for Mexico's poor, dark-skinned
masses. Remember that the next time you hear the "racist" term being batted around.

Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda, son of a previous foreign minister of the same name, has led a
charmed life. Castaneda has had the privilege of playing several roles: left-wing Yanqui-basher,
university professor (in the U.S., natch!) and columnist for Newsweek magazine (its resident "Mexico
expert"). Though not a member of Fox's National Action Party (PAN), Castaneda jumped on
candidate Fox's bandwagon and was rewarded by the coveted Foreign Ministry post. This fits right in
with another Castaneda role - telling Americans how to conduct their immigration policy. In 1995, in
an article in The Atlantic Monthly, Castaneda explicitly defends the safety valve argument, writing
that "Any attempt to clamp down on immigration....will make social peace in....Mexico
untenable....Some Americans....dislike immigration, but there is very little they can do about it." At his
meeting with Secretary of State Powell, Castaneda waxed eloquent with theatrical indignation over
border tragedies: "There are too many Mexicans dying on the border--Mexicans who die of exposure,
dehydration, starvation...some....die as a result of hostile action...."

Yes, too many Mexicans die on the border, but they die because they do things like crossing deserts
without sufficient water, and other dangerous undertakings. If Mexico's rulers were really concerned
about such poor, misguided people, they would prevent them from crossing- but they find it more
convenient to let them die to score political points. Castaneda has called border violence "intolerable"
and has threatened that Mexico will not tolerate it. Strong words, but what do they actually mean?
Yes, there is violence on the border, but the violence is a direct result of lax U.S. immigration policies.
Probably what Castaneda wants to accomplish by such theatrical indignation is to up the ante until the
U.S. promises to allow more and more Mexican immigrants, in return for a "promise" to stop illegal
immigration from the Mexican side of the border. Fat chance of that! On a personal note, I myself
have been threatened with violence on the Mexican side of the border. But if I had been killed or even
injured, somehow I doubt that Jorge Castaneda would have blamed the Mexican government!

Juan Hernandez is chief of the new office for assistance of Mexicans living in the U.S., a new post
invented by Vicente Fox to underscore his northern ambitions. Hernandez, another white Mexican,
was recently in the U.S., where he lectured America on the need to legalize all illegal aliens (well, all
Mexican illegal aliens, that is!). In a splendid display of chutzpah, Hernandez said that Mexican illegal
aliens deserve the right to become members of society and should not have to hide. There you have it,
open borders by another name.

Adolfo Aguilar Zinser serves as Fox's national security adviser. To say that Aguilar-Zinser also thinks
U.S. immigration laws are too strict goes without saying. But Americans should be aware that Aguilar,
in an editorial in 2000, has called for the mobilization of Americans of Mexican ancestry to be used as
a tool of Mexican foreign policy (hmm, that would include FrontPageMagazine.com editor Richard
Poe, wouldn't it?). That the president shares such a strategy seems obvious. Shortly after his
inauguration, Fox met with representatives of MALDEF and other U.S. pressure groups purporting to
speak for Americans of Mexican ancestry. The topic of that meeting was immigration. During Fox's
term, look for Mexico's leaders to attempt to blur the distinction between Americans of Mexican
ancestry and Mexicans who live in the U.S., to further the interests of the Mexican government.

Clearly, Fox plans to control U.S. immigration policy. I expect his administration to pursue that goal
by several tactics, employed simultaneously. Pressure for an amnesty, crocodile tears over border
violence, deal-making with U.S. politicians and ethnic identity activists, and any other means will likely
continue. Any attempt of the U.S. to control its own border with Mexico will be pronounced "racist"
by Mexican politicians and journalists, as they have done for years already. Such critics wave the
banner of "human rights", but scratch the surface and you can see that their real goal is open borders
with the U.S. (Mexico's own immigration policies are much stricter than ours already, but somehow
that never makes it to the negotiating table).

Many Americans have sincere misgivings about America's mass immigration policies, and with good
reason. The present system is seriously flawed and in need of reform. According to a 2000 Zogby
poll, 72% of Americans polled supported a lower level of immigration. But unless ordinary Americans
speak out more forcefully on the subject, their interests will not be addressed. After all, big business
(seeking cheap labor), ethnic identity activists (seeking political power) and the Mexican government
(seeking to expand its "safety valve") have already carved out their spheres of influence and are
working together to ensure that the system continues and grows. Immigration is, and should be a
subject of debate. Isn't immigration policy the decision of American citizens? Or does Vicente Fox
have the right to tell us how to run our own immigration policy? Nature abhors a vacuum, and if
ordinary Americans don't speak up, Fox and his American allies will make your decisions for you.

Finally, another question should be asked, and I ask it as a friend of the Mexican people, who has
lived here since 1991. My question is, Does mass immigration to the U.S. really help Mexico, in the
long run? Many people would answer in the affirmative, but I'm not convinced. Certainly, Mexico's
(mostly white) elite sees it as being in its interest. Their goal is to get as many of their poor
darker-skinned countrymen out of the country for as long as possible. Get them to the U.S., where
even illegal aliens receive public benefits and can even bring lawsuits. That way, they won't make the
government look so bad, they won't use up resources, they won't commit crimes (well, at least not
here in Mexico, and they won't cause trouble for the ruling elite (essentially the view advanced by
Castaneda in The Atlantic Monthly). Furthermore, when the poor Mexicans in the U.S. have
troubles, as they undoubtedly will, they can be loudly "defended" to score domestic political points and
even used as a "Trojan horse" to influence U.S. immigration policy and perpetuate the system. Sounds
like quite a deal for the elite, doesn't it? They get to have their cake and eat it too.

Bur from my vantage point, I see things differently. I perceive the overwhelming attraction of the
American "safety valve" as, in the long run, detrimental. It casts a giant shadow over Mexico's social
and economic life. The attraction entices men to leave their wives and children for months on end end,
and it may be related to growing family disintegration here in Mexico, especially among the lower
socioecomic classes.

In the words of Samuel Fernandez, a Catholic priest, " Yes, they have raised their lives a bit
economically, but it is a pity, the divided houses we have here. The people morally, psychologically,
have many problems. The families lose control, they lose unity, they lose the sense of being families.
Every year more people leave. Every year the towns are more and more alone." Entire villages have
practically become ghost towns as their menfolk (and sometimes womenfolk) have headed north. The
"safety valve" phenomenon skews economic development, even enticing middle class Mexicans and
Mexicans who already have employment here in Mexico to go north "for a few dollars more". Already
some sectors of the Mexican economy are complaining of labor shortages they blame, at least
partially, on the northward exodus of workers.The migration "safety valve" is taken into consideration
as part of economic planning and fosters a collective mentality of dependence, and attitude of "why
resolve the problems here, if they can go work in the U.S.?

In short, Mexico's "safety valve" addiction has a corrosive effect upon Mexican society, and, like any
addiction, requires ever bigger "fixes" to continue getting high. It's disappointing that Vicente Fox, with
all his good ideas and intentions, has opted not to end this corrosive addiction, but to increase the
dosage. Maybe the American people need to help him end it.

The fact is that there are more constructive ways to help Mexicans than by continuing the mass
immigration cop-out. Already there is a great amount of American private investment which helps the
Mexican economy, and private American charities which help meet social needs. Instead of increasing
mass immmigration, Bush should work on ways to stimulate more American investment and charity
going to Mexico, to help Mexicans construct a future in their own country. It sounds suspiciously like
"compassionate conservatism," does it not? And it would be much better than exacerbating the present
problems caused by an immigration system that is really not good for either country.

Allan E. Wall is an American citizen who has lived and worked in Mexico since 1991. Presently
employed as an English instructor and administrator, Allan has legal permission from the
Mexican government to live and work in Mexico under the rubric of an FM-2 migration
document (No. 312448) for which he had to pay $1,816.00 pesos for renewal this past year.
Allan would be glad to receive questions or comments (pro or con), at
allan39@prodigy.net.mx .
Source:
http://frontpagemag.com/archives/miscellaneous/wall02-12-01.htm

Allan E. Wall