Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Proposition 200 and Mexico's War on Arizona
CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | FEBRUARY 5, 2005 | CHRISTOPHER ADAMO

Posted on 02/04/2005 8:52:37 PM PST by CHARLITE

By far the most dramatic menace to this nation’s future and safety emanates from the cauldrons of Islamist extremism. But Americans are also in danger of losing their country on another front. A far larger incursion into the American homeland is being carried out via its southern border. Though an ongoing problem for many years, its instigators now apparently believe they are ready to take their attack to the next level.

During a January 28 radio interview, Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez has threatened the State of Arizona with legal action through the international courts in order to overturn Proposition 200, a ballot initiative lawfully passed last fall to curb state expenditures on illegal aliens.

Derbez plans to initially use the “legal capacities” of the United States to achieve his goal. But if that doesn’t work, he will resort to the intervention of “international tribunals.”

Momentarily sidestepping the absurdity of granting any legal capacity to an international organization regarding strictly internal issues, consider the larger picture of what is actually being attempted, as a foreign power now makes threats against an individual American State.

The Constitution, in its original form, was never designed to put the federal government in charge of regulating minute details in the lives of Americans. Basically, it had two purposes, which were to act as an arbiter between the individual states, and to collectively represent those states in the face of foreign challenges, whether diplomatic or military.

Yet the federal leviathan, which grew monstrously beyond its original boundaries, has become an overwhelming burden of bureaucratic entanglements to the citizenry. Meanwhile the Mexican government, a foreign entity, seeks to intimidate and ultimately dictate the policies of an individual American State.

Thus far, it has done so with little or no official backlash from the United States. So just as those in government are increasingly ignoring the Constitutional limitations to their authority, so are legitimate Constitutional responsibilities to protect the people from foreign incursion being abandoned, and American citizens being left defenseless.

Prior to the recent Iraqi elections, it became apparent that foreign insurgents were causing much of the disorder and mayhem plaguing that country. Thus the major thrust of American and Iraqi military action focused on securing that nation’s borders.

Yet when a similar incursion threatens to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States, this country’s government sees fit to respond with indifference and platitudes.

Of course, Derbez is hardly acting alone. Mexican President Vicente Fox has long rejected the term “illegal alien,” claiming instead that the invaders are “undocumented workers,” and thus displaying a total disregard for American law.

Fox has been unrestrained in his contempt for the very concept of American sovereignty, promoting the concept of “dual citizenship” whereby Mexican immigrants would conceivably be eligible to vote in both countries.

Increasingly, his long-term goal appears to be an effort to transform the Southwestern United States into a Mexican “Sudetenland,” which was the heavily Germanic region of Czechoslovakia that Hitler exploited as an excuse to invade and occupy that country.

Though nobody is suggesting a full-scale invasion by Fox’s armies, he increasingly seeks to dictate and define laws and regulations on this side of the border, so as to maximize his ability to siphon and bleed as much as possible back into his own nation’s economy.

A proper response to such audacity would be to warn Fox that America is just as likely to bend under his diplomatic pressure as it would from the terrorist acts of al Qaeda. Unfortunately, President Bush has already given far too much ground, even embracing the term “undocumented worker,” and advocating amnesty for those who have flouted U.S. law to enter the country.

Such a stance completely ignores the degradation to American society that results from the mass influx of illegals. Among Arizona’s Hispanic population, forty percent supported Proposition 200. Clearly, these citizens realize that they have every bit the vested interest in the future of America as does the rest of its population, and comprehend the threat posed to it by the unrestricted invasion of illegals.

It is altogether an abomination of Constitutional principles that Arizona should be left on its own, fighting to maintain control of its destiny. If Arizona can be isolated and pressured in such a manner, what other state, anywhere in the nation can consider itself safe? Indeed, the situation ominously suggests that a sovereign American nation may no longer exist.

About the Writer: Christopher Adamo is a freelance writer from southeastern Wyoming, where he has been involved in grassroots political activites for several years. He maintains a website at
http://www.chrisadamo.com.
Christopher receives e-mail at
adamo.chronwatch@lycos.com.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; america; arizona; ballotinitiative; derbez; expenditures; foreignminister; illegalaliens; immigration; internationalcourts; islamofascist; legalaction; luisernesto; mexico; prop200; proposition200; southernborder; sovereignty; state; terrorists; unitedstatesofmexico; vulnerability
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

1 posted on 02/04/2005 8:52:38 PM PST by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

If the Mexican government pursues this and Bush is seen to be "neutral", this could cost him heavily in the Southwest.


2 posted on 02/04/2005 8:55:56 PM PST by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Heh, gonna sue Arizona in US courts?

Hey Arizona: Insist on a Jury trial.

Case Closed!


3 posted on 02/04/2005 8:58:31 PM PST by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

"If the Mexican government pursues this and Bush is seen to be "neutral", this could cost him heavily in the Southwest."
-----

Cost Him?

Dude: he's a lame duck! We must be working from a different
definition of "cost".....


4 posted on 02/04/2005 9:00:17 PM PST by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

Bush won, get over it.


5 posted on 02/04/2005 9:02:33 PM PST by bayourod (Unless we get over 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, President Hillary will take all your guns away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

Cost him what, exactly? A third term?


6 posted on 02/04/2005 9:04:46 PM PST by Doohickey ("This is a hard and dirty war, but when it's over, nothing will ever be too difficult again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Sam the Sham

"this could cost him heavily in the Southwest."

Georgie's workin' on his legacy...unfortunately he'll be remembered by the Mexico government and populace as the gringo that opened the borders.


9 posted on 02/04/2005 9:11:53 PM PST by politicalwit (Import poverty...hire an illegal today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: itsmyboy
My beef is people who say "president bush should be ashamed representing illegal foreign criminals">

Did you join FR just before the election simply to bash Bush?

10 posted on 02/04/2005 9:14:53 PM PST by bayourod (Unless we get over 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, President Hillary will take all your guns away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: konaice

International Court


11 posted on 02/04/2005 9:19:04 PM PST by GeronL (2-7-72 is my birthday, in lieu of gifts, just send me cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

Bush doesn't care what it "costs" him. He can't run again.


12 posted on 02/04/2005 9:19:26 PM PST by clee1 (Islam is a deadly plague; liberalism is the AIDS virus that prevents us from defending ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: itsmyboy

"president bush should be ashamed representing illegal foreign criminals, and not standing up for rights, privileges, and needs of his fellow american citizens."

Remember, too, that it was his daddy who jammed NAFTA onto the fast-track in the waning daze of his presidency.....with the allegation that it would go far toward reducing illegal alien traffic across our border. What crap THAT turned out to be.


13 posted on 02/04/2005 9:23:22 PM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
LAW AND HISTORY REVIEW

"Immigration inspectors ignored Mexicans coming into the southwestern United States during the 1900s and 1910s to work in railroad construction, mining, and agriculture.

"The Immigration Bureau did not seriously consider Mexican immigration within its purview, but rather as something that was "regulated by labor market demands in [the southwestern] border states."

" The Bureau also described the Southwest as the "natural habitat" of Mexicans, acknowledging, albeit strangely, Mexicans' claims of belonging in an area that had once been part of Mexico.

"The Immigration Act of 1917 doubled the head tax and imposed a literacy test, erecting the first barriers to entry. But unlawful entry was limited, as the Labor Department exempted Mexicans from the requirements during the war.

" It was not until 1919 that Mexicans entering the United States were required to apply for admission at lawfully designated ports of entry.35

14 posted on 02/04/2005 9:24:22 PM PST by bayourod (Unless we get over 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, President Hillary will take all your guns away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
During a January 28 radio interview, Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez has threatened the State of Arizona with legal action through the international courts

How many divisions does he command?

15 posted on 02/04/2005 9:29:14 PM PST by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bayourod

16 posted on 02/04/2005 9:30:20 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a mean-spirited and divisive loco gringo armed terrorist vigilante cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: bayourod

Who cares what happened almost 100 years ago. It's time you opened your eyes and joined law abiding people in the 21st century.


18 posted on 02/04/2005 9:31:44 PM PST by politicalwit (Import poverty...hire an illegal today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

How many can he transport in two low-riders?


19 posted on 02/04/2005 9:31:55 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a mean-spirited and divisive loco gringo armed terrorist vigilante cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Mexico will have trouble with Sovereign Immunity.
20 posted on 02/04/2005 9:32:43 PM PST by Mike Darancette (MESOCONS FOR RICE '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
NAFTA was voted in on November 20, 1993, that was during the Clinton Administration. Get your facts straight.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395
21 posted on 02/04/2005 9:38:54 PM PST by RetroWarrior ("We count it death to falter, not to die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JackelopeBreeder
How many can he transport in two low-riders?

LOL. Not enough I would suspect.

22 posted on 02/04/2005 9:40:32 PM PST by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior

actually, you should read what I wrote again, and think about it before you go calling me stupid.


23 posted on 02/04/2005 9:42:32 PM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mark17

When contemplating the great global food chain, always remember:

The open borders opportunist equates to a Hostess Twinkie.


24 posted on 02/04/2005 9:44:38 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a mean-spirited and divisive loco gringo armed terrorist vigilante cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
I did rad it again and your still stupid. Former President Bush was NOT in office in 1993, so how can he have jammed NAFTA onto the fast-track in the waning daze of his presidency
Two years is not a fast track!
25 posted on 02/04/2005 9:47:49 PM PST by RetroWarrior ("We count it death to falter, not to die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior

rad = read (I've been typing too long today)


26 posted on 02/04/2005 9:48:53 PM PST by RetroWarrior ("We count it death to falter, not to die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior

LOL. Your "logic" deceives you. Here is the fact which supports what I wrote......not what you THINK I wrote.

"President Bush signed the NAFTA agreement on December 17, 1992 at a meeting of the Organization of American States. The accord was signed prior to the expiration of the President's negotiating authority, forcing Congress to either change its procedures or to consider NAFTA under fast track rules--which limits the amount of debate and requires lawmakers to vote up-or-down on the measure without amendments."

http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=201740&DID=223558

no apology is necessary.....your red face is sufficient.


27 posted on 02/04/2005 9:53:54 PM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

(suppressed snickering in the background)


28 posted on 02/04/2005 9:55:38 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a mean-spirited and divisive loco gringo armed terrorist vigilante cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

I don't think that Bush & Co. really realize the outrage at what is taking place on the border. But they will. Oh yes indeedy, they will.


29 posted on 02/04/2005 9:58:36 PM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
How can he sign a trade agreement that wasn't approved by Congress? The President doesn't have the ability to unilaterally sign trade agreements! They MUST be approved by Congress. That's why they voted on it DUmmy!

And if NAFTA was such a bad idea, why didn't Former President Clinton veto it?
30 posted on 02/04/2005 9:59:10 PM PST by RetroWarrior ("We count it death to falter, not to die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: konaice
"Heh, gonna sue Arizona in US courts? ...Insist on a Jury trial"

uh... I think the real threat and the topic of this article has to do with AZ being sued in an international court of jurisdiction.

"Case Closed!?

Not Quite!

31 posted on 02/04/2005 10:01:15 PM PST by Lloyd227 (American Forces armed with what? Spit balls?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

"I don't think that Bush & Co. really realize the outrage at what is taking place on the border."

Bush was a two-term Texas Govenor...and Texas resident. He knows damned well what's happening on the border. His nose is Fox brown.


32 posted on 02/04/2005 10:03:34 PM PST by politicalwit (Import poverty...hire an illegal today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

Every state should do what Arizona is doing!

Perhaps it is time for a Real Third Party -- an AMERICAN PARTY! BORDERS, LANGUAGE and COUNTRY.

If borders are so important as in Iraq than Borders are even more important for the USA.

Why is Bush ignoring the War Mexico is performing on the USA?

The first duty of the president is to Defend the USA -- that means BORDERS!!!!


33 posted on 02/04/2005 10:04:45 PM PST by GaryMontana (The future belongs to the bold, not the cowards who hide under rags (ragheads)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior

"And if NAFTA was such a bad idea, why didn't Former President Clinton veto it?"

Simple. He is also a trilateralist with no respect for American sovereignty.


34 posted on 02/04/2005 10:06:19 PM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior

"And if NAFTA was such a bad idea, why didn't Former President Clinton veto it?"

If you think NAFTA was or is a wonderful thing I suggest you read this:


http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147


35 posted on 02/04/2005 10:08:00 PM PST by politicalwit (Import poverty...hire an illegal today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lloyd227

International courts have no jurisdiction in the US;

U.S. and the World Court

In 1946, the U.S. accepted an optional clause in the Court's statute -- that gave the Court compulsory jurisdiction over cases regarding interpretation of treaties, any question of international law and any breach of international obligations. In 1984, Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua filed a suit against the U.S for its support of the Contra rebels. In response, the Reagan administration promptly withdrew U.S. recognition of the World Court's compulsory jurisdiction.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/un/who/icj.html


36 posted on 02/04/2005 10:09:09 PM PST by RetroWarrior ("We count it death to falter, not to die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: politicalwit
I haven't said whether NAFTA is or is not wonderful. I was just pointing out your fallacy in blaming Former President Bush for NAFTA!
37 posted on 02/04/2005 10:10:40 PM PST by RetroWarrior ("We count it death to falter, not to die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior
And if NAFTA was such a bad idea, why didn't Former President Clinton veto it?

Fresh meat!

38 posted on 02/04/2005 10:11:50 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a mean-spirited and divisive loco gringo armed terrorist vigilante cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bayourod

If Bush didn't kow-tow to Vicente Fox and the corrupt Mexican oligarchs, you would turn against him so fast. You aren't pro-Bush, you are pro-Mexican government --- that's become extremely clear. The SW belongs to that government huh?


39 posted on 02/04/2005 10:14:57 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JackelopeBreeder

LOL I love those eyes!


40 posted on 02/04/2005 10:15:18 PM PST by RetroWarrior ("We count it death to falter, not to die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GaryMontana

Here's a hint --- the Mexican oligarchs hold some strange kind of power over our government. Remember last week how Tony Garza attempted to stand up a little and warn Americans of the dangers of the borders? Well they have him backing down fast --- now explaining that the borders are really safe --- and not only that --- his little mistake is going to cost the American taxpayers some more millions:

$5 million to help fight Mexico crime


Victor Calzada / El Paso Times
U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza Jr., left, Undersecretary for North America of Mexico's Foreign Ministry Geronimo Gutierrez, center, and Chihuahua Gov. Joe Reyes Baeza were among the dignitaries at the 10th Border Liaison Mechanism plenary session Thursday at the Chamizal National Memorial Theater in El Paso.






Tony Garza Jr., the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, came to the border this week bearing gifts -- $5 million for Chihuahua state to beef up its crime-fighting efforts, and $300,000 for universities in El Paso and Juárez to battle tuberculosis.

"The U.S. government is committing a total of $5 million over the next four years for a range of cooperative programs in Chihuahua to advance justice reform and victims' assistance," he said. "These initiatives will strengthen cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico and help improve capacity to investigate and prosecute these and other crimes."

Garza also touched on the homicides of hundreds of Juárez women in recent years. ....

Garza recently angered Mexican President Vicente Fox and Juárez business and political leaders after the U.S. State Department issued an announcement warning Americans about the safety risks of traveling across the border because of a rash of violence in Mexican border cities attributed to dueling drug cartels. ....

Garza also made headlines in Mexico after the U.S. confirmation that he plans to marry Mexico's richest woman, whose family is one of the owners of Grupo Modelo, a consortium worth about $1.5 billion that makes Corona and Negra Modelo beers. The news, made public a few days ago, was the talk of the border: LaPolaka.Com, a Mexican media outlet, titled its story on the new power couple "The Envy of Latin Lovers."

Garza said his engagement to María A. Aramburuzabala, whose company also holds a stake in the Televisa network, does not pose a conflict of interest for the U.S. government. "There are guidelines for these things, and for financial disclosures," he said.

http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20050204-19433.shtml





41 posted on 02/04/2005 10:21:07 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior

" I was just pointing out your fallacy in blaming Former President Bush for NAFTA!"

I suggest you read the posted article I mentioned in an earlier post. IT WAS GHW BUSH THAT PUSHED NAFTA. Had Clinton vetoed NAFTA congress would have overridden his veto.


42 posted on 02/04/2005 10:24:21 PM PST by politicalwit (Import poverty...hire an illegal today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior

Try living with them. That's Sauza. His litter-mate Ornito is attmepting to become the biggest, meanest Siamese who ever lived. I have the scars to prove it. I have a 67 pound pit bull and a 107 pound sheperd whose favorite pursuits are keeping Ornito's plans for world domination in check.


43 posted on 02/04/2005 10:25:07 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a mean-spirited and divisive loco gringo armed terrorist vigilante cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: FITZ

Tony Garza Jr has his marching orders from Bush. That's the reason he backed down.


44 posted on 02/04/2005 10:26:27 PM PST by politicalwit (Import poverty...hire an illegal today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: politicalwit

It should disturb us that the former Bush and Carlos Salinas de Gortari ---- the drug-king-pin Mexican president were who rammed this NAFTA bill through. They knew all along it would destroy the majority of Mexicans --- and bankrupt the farmers of Mexico. There has to be some kind of big pay-off --- or extortion going on.

Many Americans don't know what the Salinas de Gortari family is about --- Raul and Carlos killed a servant girl --- of course the investigation "proved" it was just an accident, Raul is in prison still for killing their brother-in-law, Enrique just was found in a posh Mexican neighborhood suffocated with a plastic bag over his head. Why would the Bushes even associate with such types?


45 posted on 02/04/2005 10:30:32 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: politicalwit
You can blame Bush all you want, but since we don't have Kings, I will not blame one person for what Two President (since you insist on including Bush) and Congress implemented. But it's all Bush's fault, right?

It's late and I'm going to bed. If you want to argue further, I'll be back on line tomorrow. Have a good night.
46 posted on 02/04/2005 10:30:34 PM PST by RetroWarrior ("We count it death to falter, not to die")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: politicalwit

True --- he couldn't just grab millions of American tax dollars on his own. And the girlfriend isn't about to let go of her billions to fight crime in Mexico.


47 posted on 02/04/2005 10:31:49 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FITZ

Clinton, Bush, and the CIA, perhaps?


48 posted on 02/04/2005 10:34:27 PM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior

Doesn't the president have fast track authority on trade?


49 posted on 02/04/2005 10:35:42 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RetroWarrior

Thursday, 1 August, 2002, 21:23 GMT 22:23 UK

The US Senate has voted to grant President George W Bush full trade negotiating powers.

The result was seen as a long-awaited victory for the White House, which has been seeking such powers for the President since he was elected in November 2000.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2166968.stm


50 posted on 02/04/2005 10:38:23 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson