Posted on 05/12/2005 5:55:18 PM PDT by JesseJane
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Global Policy Program
International Migration Policy Program /event
On February 15, 2001, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Migration Policy Program hosted a breakfast briefing featuring three members of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel, which released a report on February 14 to U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox including proposals to change and improve the relationship of the U.S. and Mexico regarding migration. Speakers included Demetri Papademetriou, Co-Director of the International Migration Policy Program and the U.S. Convenor of the panel; Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum; and B. Lindsay Lowell, Director of Research at Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of International Migration. Deborah W. Meyers, Associate at the International Migration Policy Program, was the moderator.
Demetri Papademetriou commented on the general themes and goals of the panel. The panel avoided making detailed proposals which would only suffer the "death of a thousand cuts," like many proposals do in Washington. It is detailed enough to provide the main principles for discussion and policy and offers several broad ideas. The panel is trying to take advantage of the meeting on February 16 between Presidents Bush and Fox. Papademetriou emphasized that the panel's work is a truly bilateral effort. The report gives an image of how the panel visualizes a different relationship with Mexico and emphasizes the need for a package of integrated proposals and cooperative efforts between the two countries, rather than unilateral single-issue policies. It considers the confluence of economics, demographics, and politics on the issue of migration. In the area of politics, the two new presidents are both former governors and businessmen who understand that their economies are highly integrated and interdependent. Since 1994, two-way trade between the U.S. and Mexico has tripled; Mexico is the U.S.'s second largest trading partner. Labor markets are also integrated. Policy-makers must think regionally, starting with NAFTA. Papademetriou stated that if there is not a commitment to most of the ideas in the report, the policy cannot be successful in changing the terms of the debate over the U.S.-Mexico relationship. The panel has a firm conviction that the status quo has created a black market which undermines law enforcement and causes too many deaths. Frank Sharry spoke next. He said that the panel has been working on the report for six months and included a variety of perspectives. The panel's members wanted to ask if there was a way to refashion the debate about migration between the U.S. and Mexico. They also wanted their proposals to respond to reality. The panel's report calls on the U.S. and Mexico to craft a "grand bargain" that would be mutually beneficial, make migration safe, legal, orderly, and predictable, and decrease migratory pressures over time. The report calls for a reconceptualization of the border as a "line of convergence rather than a line of defense." Sharry listed the four main principles suggested by the panel to guide future discussions:
1. Improve the treatment of Mexican migrants by making legal visas and legal status more widely available and making legality the norm. The panel tried not to be very detailed and wanted to state premises to guide policy-making rather than promote specific policies. One way to make legality the norm is to institute legalizing mechanisms; some examples might be expanding and expediting family visas, expanding work visas, and implementing temporary worker programs. Temporary migration programs should be in response to measurable market needs and should meet certain criteria: equitable labor rights that can be meaningfully enforced, social and health protections, and reasonable options for temporary migrants who qualify to apply for permanent residency. The panel feels that only legalizing migrants in the U.S. or only providing more legal means for those who wish to come to the U.S. will perpetuate the unacceptable status quo; both must be addressed.
2. Call on Mexico to collaborate with the U.S. to reduce illegal migration. There should be cooperative efforts to crack down on smuggling organizations and work together to protect human rights in the border area.
3. Governments should work together to build a viable border region.
4. The long-term solution is the growth of the Mexican economy. Mexico has acknowledged that it must take primary responsibility for its development; however, the NAFTA partners and certain financial institutions should help. Remittance-based development programs are among options to reach this goal.
Sharry emphasized that picking and choosing the elements in the report is likely to undermine the overall effort's effectiveness. Lindsay Lowell said that it is an appropriate time for these issues to be addressed due in part to current and likely future demographics. The Mexican economy is growing rapidly and generating more jobs. Lowell said he sees three particularly important points in the report. The first is that it is a bilateral, grand bargain; the Mexican government is willing to make a change from its past non-involvement in the issue. Second, the report is a whole package whose elements must be taken together. Third, the report suggests incremental action; it is not recommending that the two governments open the border now.
Lowell said that the U.S. must deal with the Mexican migrant population already living in the U.S. There are many ways to address that issue; expanding family visas and work visas is something to discuss and may be among the ways to help solve the issue. The panel also calls for pilot temporary worker programs. The key is Mexico's greater cooperation; the report does not call for elimination of border controls but for an increase in cooperation of many types along the border. Human rights at the border are also important; there must be an effort to stop deaths at the border. The U.S. should facilitate the flow of legal migration. Also, Mexican economic development is important; remittances alone cannot accomplish it, and certain banks and microcredit organizations should be involved.
Meyers said that the U.S. has two neighbors and must consider how these policies affect Canada, as well. The report proposes equal treatment for Mexico and Canada and special treatment for both countries; perhaps Mexico and Canada should be exempt from the normal immigration formula
Summary by Kerry Boyd
I know it's long, however, after bumping into it one time today, and thinking about whether to post it or not, I decided I would...but it had been moved way down in ranking. So, rather than having this disappear like so many other things on the net, here it is. I bumped into it after readint the post today titled "Leftist Foundations Under Fire", and spotted the Carnegie name.
Without futher ado, and apologies for length, here it is.
If Mexico had a remotely honest government it would be cheaper to send aid to help them develop their country. A healthy Mexican economy would be good for everybody. However, Mexico is corrupt from top to bottom and finds it easier to behave as a big ole bloodsucker.
The panel's report calls on the U.S. and Mexico to craft a "grand bargain" that would be mutually beneficial, make migration safe, legal, orderly, and predictable, and decrease migratory pressures over time.
Interesting. The Report makes several funndamental errors in thinking, the main one being that Mexico will have any interest in halting the flow of illegal immigrants. Immigration acts both as a safety valve for a poverty-stricken Mexican society and as a nice infusion of cash, to the tune on tens of billions of dollars sent in by Mexican expats.
Mexico is hardly likey to give up either of these.
The more I read at the site, and related links, Mexico is also acting as a funnel country for aliens from other countries. So, Mexican illegals, though they constitute the bulk, is only one aspect of the scam Mexico is thrusting upon America.
PS, you are right, the infusion of cash is also coming from those they funnel on through to the US.
Here it is;open your checkbooks.
Mexico has acknowledged that it must take primary responsibility for its development; however, the NAFTA partners and certain financial institutions should help.
Mexico; "Sure, we'll see what we can do about the illegal immigration thing, but only after you dump a bunch of money into our country to help us with our own development, which we cannot possibly do on our own, and should not be expected to do so.
there must be an effort to stop deaths at the border
By us, of course.
The U.S. should facilitate the flow of legal migration
See? It's our fault. Always is.
it is not recommending that the two governments open the border now
No, no, that comes later, after there is nothing we can do to stop it.
This is why I generally stay away from illegal immigration threads. I do not have one positive thing to offer.
Just damn.
Give the USA until December 25, 2005 to gather enough bright ribbon to wrap around the country, north to south and east to west, with a giant bow in the center. We will then attach a "Merry Christmas Mexico" card and call it a done deal.
Coupled with the $10 million SoS Rice hand delivered a couple of months ago, should make this a suitable grand bargain...whata ya say mexico??? Deal?
Just FYI, when they speak of the BORDER REGION, if you go to the EPA website you find in the archives, the Border XXI REGION: Border XXI Program
The border between the U.S. and Mexico has been replaced by a shaded zone running between the two countries.
That 5 year program ended and now we are here:
U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Framework (read on down to the La Paz Agreement...
interesting......... Just damn is right.
Dear Just,
Thank you for the gift, esta mucho gusto. Not enough, give me more. / s
Signed,
V. Faux
Holy crap. The whole thing makes my stomach turn. And I simply cannot believe the Republican party is allowing this to happen.
Me neither. They have been trying to reshape the argument and see what the American people will swallow. 2006 may be our last chance to have a predominate 'citizen only' voice at the ballot box (in states with the monster electoral vote count). Who knows what rights the politicians and judges will bestow upon illegals by the 2008 Presidential election.
Look no further than El Presidente Boosh.
The man is a stealth socialist bent on obliterating U.S. sovereignty.
He's doing a fine job thus far, isn't he?
EPA Website: No U.S. Border
Quoting from the article:
Sometime before the 2000 election I received an email about groups in Southern California calling for an end to the U.S.-Mexican border and the creation of a 'border zone"- an area 50 miles on either side of the U.S.-Mexican border that would become independent of either country.
I dismissed this as, well, wacky.
I don't anymore.
This past summer the respected magazine The Economist devoted several pages to this concept, suggesting that the idea of a 'third country' between Mexico and the United States has merit.
The magazine reported that 'thinking of the border as a separate country makes some kind of sense" because a "third nation" straddling the U.S.-Mexican border already has developed between Dan Diego/Tijuana on the west to Brownsville, Texas on the east.
Of course, the border is an imaginary political line. bust some would expand this line into a 'zone' or 'region' or 'area' that would become a separate country.
[snip]
The Economist says the genesis for the border zone 'country' germinated from NAFTA. As the U.S. and Mexican economies integrate, the need for a fixed border evaporates -- so the thinking goes. [snipped to end]
no comment.
If John Kerry or Clinton were pulling this crap, you and the rest of Freepdom would be pounding them into submission -- and rightfully so.
There is nothing more insidious than a traitor from within hiding behind the (R).
Da nada. (dripping with sarcasm) BTW - I was off reading the links in your #9 post. All I can say is that I am now sick, muchas gracias.
We've been set up by One Worlders like George H. Bush and Junior, and the rest of the Rockefeller RINO elitists who see the world NOT as sovereign countries, but as Trade Zones.
D@mn them. They are traitors to the Founders and to the Republic.
READ THE ARTICLE, CHECK THE LINKS IN POST #9, DO THE MATH.........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.