Oil for Illegals? Mexico, and the Democrats, have a fit over House vote

Last Thursday, the House International Relations Committee narrowly passed a resolution introduced by Rep. Cass Ballenger of North Carolina (R.) requiring that any amnesty deal for the five million Mexican illegal aliens in the United States be linked to an opening of Mexico's state-controlled oil industry to investment by U.S. companies.

Then the fun started.The Mexican press exploded in outrage. "Blackmail!" cried the archbishop of Mexico City. "Stupidity!" said a representative of the oil workers' union. A plot to "annex Latin America," intoned Nobel peace-prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. An example of U.S. lawmakers' "ignorance," "arrogance," and "imperial vision," according to a Mexican senator. The head of the leftist PRD called on President Vicente Fox to "put on his pants" — act like a man — and oppose the proposal. Fox finally joined the tsunami of criticism on Sunday and categorically rejected any privatization of Pemex, Mexico's state oil monopoly.

None of this should come as a surprise. Mexico's seizure of foreign oil companies' assets in 1938 is central to modern Mexican nationalism; state control of the oil industry is actually written into the constitution. What's more, there are midterm elections for the lower house of Mexico's Congress coming up in July. Embracing privatization of Pemex would not be a vote getter, to say the least. And according to William and Mary political scientist George Grayson, author of Oil and Mexican Foreign Policy, "unless the PAN makes notable strides in these contests, the beleaguered Fox will find himself a lame duck with three years-plus remaining in his term."

But however outraged the Mexicans are, and however different these two issues are, it only seems fair to link them. After all, Mexico is asking us to start down the path of eliminating our southern border and embracing a European Union-style shared sovereignty — the least we can expect is for them also to eliminate barriers that are important to their nation.

Nor has this idea come out of the blue. In the July 30, 2001, Weekly Standard, economist Irwin Stelzer suggested just such an approach. Stelzer wrote that "monopoly oil prices" could offset a good part of the economic growth assumed in the president's tax cut and that "the finger of blame points squarely at Mexico." He wrote that we should insist that Mexico cooperate with the United States and other pro-free market countries and stop supporting the OPEC oil cartel and its leaders such as the Marxist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Stelzer said that before Bush strikes any deal on amnesty, "he should insist on the free movement of ...oil from Mexico" and the opening of Mexico's oil resources to American investment.

While Mexican opposition may be no surprise, the Democrats' furor over the oil-for-illegals approach is, given the importance of Mexico's oil to the United States and the huge costs that an illegal-alien amnesty would impose on us. After all, they have no chance whatever of getting an amnesty through Congress without some kind of sweetener, and this would seem an obvious candidate.

But it is not to be. Rep. Robert Menendez was so angry that he held a press conference last Friday denouncing the resolution. He was joined by Rep. Ciro Rodriguez and Silvestre Reyes; the latter, a past head of the Hispanic Caucus, said the amendment was an "insult" to Mexico and indicative of an "insane and outofcontrol attitude on the part of a country [the United States] that believes that as a matter of public foreign policy bullying is acceptable." It was Menendez who prompted the whole dust-up in the first place; Ballenger's amendment, to the State Department appropriations bill, was offered as a substitute to a proposal by Menendez calling for the conclusion of a "migration" accord which, among other things, "respect[ed] the human dignity of all migrants, regardless of their status" — i.e., an amnesty for illegal aliens.

The partisan nature of the vote suggests the depth of opposition in the president's own party for his preferred immigration policies. The only Republican to vote against Ballenger's oil-for-illegals linkage was Pete King (who has a career grade of F on the reformist Americans for Better Immigration website). Even such flamboyant Republican supporters of high immigration as Ileana Ros Lehtinen (career grade of F), Chris Smith (D-), and Steve Chabot (D+) voted for the linkage.

However bad the immigration positions of these Republicans, they at least understand that a massive illegal-alien amnesty must be met with some gesture from Mexico. But the Democratic-party/Mexican-government position on amnesty for illegals appears to be all quid from the United States and no quo from Mexico.

Well, Armenians are a very peculiar group. I know Armenians vote heavily democratic, however they are not all swindling Medicare. Most Armenians work hard and obey the laws.

Generally speaking, educated immigrants are a huge plus for the US, while poorly educated immigrants are big negative.

I'm laughing so hard I'm in tears here. We can't seal our Southern border with Mexico unless we build a version of the Great Wall, and even THAT won't stop people from bailing over somehow. It's ABOUT TIME we got SOMETHING out of Mexico besides illegals and empty rhetoric.M\

In my dream world we would just seal that border, take Mexico's oil, and use the profits to pay for all of the expenses that have been encountered by US governments (state, local, federal), supporting the Mexican invasion.

It's simple. If either political party finally gets it (about immigrants sapping jobs and services) they will win elections.

You could deport the illegals, however nearly all of them have young children who were born in the US, and are citizens.

Growing a spine means more than just enforcing the law against the illegals themselves, but revamping immigration laws to reflect modern times. They do not need to change the Constitution to end the scam of anchor babies, I don't care what any politician says. There is a clause in the 14th Amendment which gives Congress leeway in how citizenship is applied to foreigners. Only two countries in the world allow the practice of automatic citizenship, and of course the US has to be one of them.

Again, it's a matter of showing backbone and doing what's right for the country.

"Again, it's a matter of showing backbone and doing what's right for the country."

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I'm just saying that out of the two options, either deporting all the illegals, or changing the Immigration laws, it would be much simpler for our politicians to do the latter than go through the messy process of deporting millions of illegals with small children, and revoking citizenship their children's citizenship.

Here's where I agree with everything you said: unless current demographic trends are changed, the GOP is doomed. They cannot outpander the panderers. Since today's immigrants are mostly poor, they're drawn to the party who offers the most goodies. We know who that is.

Politically, it's just not possible to end immigration from Latin America and Asia and keep it all from Eastern Europe, even if they wanted to. The only alternative for the Republicans (and for the country I might add), is to give immigration a rest for a time. That I do believe is politically possible. We need it anyway, and it will stop the Aztlan train which is the biggest threat of all we're facing.

"Politically, it's just not possible to end immigration from Latin America and Asia and keep it all from Eastern Europe, even if they wanted to."

Well SURE it is, all you need are votes in Congress. The main stream media will bitch LIKE NOTHING YOU HAVE EVER SEEN if the GOP tried to pass my proposal. However, SO WHAT? When have the main stream media ever done anything for Conservatives.

The GOP controls the house, and can pretty much pass anything it wants.

The Senate (As usual) couldn't pass it this year because the moderates will never vote for it. But in 2004, we look like we can get 6 CONSERVATIVE Senators into the Senate which would allow us to ignore the RINOs.

All you need is Will and Votes, but it can be done...

But I do understand what your talking about in regards to an immigration freeze.

Rep. Robert Menendez was so angry that he held a press conference last Friday denouncing the resolution. He was joined by Rep. Ciro Rodriguez and Silvestre Reyes; the latter, a past head of the Hispanic Caucus, said the amendment was an "insult" to Mexico and indicative of an "insane and outofcontrol attitude on the part of a country [the United States] that believes that as a matter of public foreign policy bullying is acceptable."

I guess the reaction of these "Americans" answers the question 'who's side are they on'.

When I say politically not possible what I'm talking about is you have plenty of legal Asian and Hispanic Americans in the Republican party who would be offended at such a proposal and would jump ship. Even freezing immigration would be difficult, which is why just lowering it to traditional levels would be politically more appealing. The Jordan Commission's recommendations are moderate proposals and worth reconsidering, there's enormous support for it across the country.

When it comes to illegal immigration though, the Republicans have got to show leadership, we're being invaded, there's no other word to call it. The border has to be closed and illegals deported, no matter how messy it appears. And they've got to change the anchor baby rule. It's the greatest incentive illegals have for coming here.

Here's where I agree with everything you said: unless current demographic trends are changed, the GOP is doomed.

I used to think this but Dubya and the RINOs that effectively control the GOP have convinced me that the party can remain competitive with the Democrats in years to come by doing what they have been doing in the last 20 or so years...continually moving to the left.

There is NOTHING remotely conservative about the Republican Party today. In a few years republicans will be where the democrats are today. Election Year rhetoric aside, the two parties are in reality One Beltway Party that share much in common. It's all about staying in power through growth in government and business/union feather bedding. And their MAIN WEAPON to secure this power is Massive 3rd World Immigration. America no longer has a true representative government. Indeed, we have the Best Government Money Can Buy.

Meanwhile, we hand political control of our country to that fine government in the land of vast prosperity to the South.

Years ago I remember seeing a skit on the Carol Burnett show with Harvey Korman introducing an Arab to be our next president as a way to solve the oil problem we were having with the Middle East at the time. That's the solution today, let's make Vincent Fox our next president, he'll end illegal immigration by golly.

Watch for an EXPLOSION in the Latino Crime rate in California when those Mexican baby boomers grow up a la the Black gang crime wave of the 70's 80's and mid 90's...

Watch? Look at it now. LAPD's most wanted

You might be surprised at the ratio of blacks to hispanics.

Fox finally joined the tsunami of criticism on Sunday and categorically rejected any privatization of Pemex, Mexico's state oil monopoly.

GOOD. Now it is assured that you will NEVER destroy our nation through a criminal "amnesty" while Conservatives control our organs of power.

You could deport the illegals, however nearly all of them have young children who were born in the US, and are citizens. Since those kids (ie Anchor Babies) are citizens, you can't deport them, but if they don't go with the parents back to Mexico, the media will accuse you of breaking up Hispanic families.

Immigration laws definitely need to be changed ---we could probably handle a few more of the worker types if we weren't taking in so many welfare types. The anchor baby scam needs to be ended immediately and all immigrants need to get cut off welfare programs. Mothers of these anchor babies often will tell welfare they don't know who the father is while they're living with him in a common law marriage ----just because they've already figured out how welfare works.

Somehow the subject of trading oil for letting in more Mexican leeches to burden taxpayers doesn't surprise me... it was bound to come up sooner or later. Some folks would sell their own mothers, ya know.... to hell with our sovereignty.

I agree but it is becoming quite clear that the Powers That Be in the Beltway want this immigration crisis to continue ad infinitum. Heck, the RNC has even instructed all their candidates to avoid any mention of illegal immigration. It's hard to get the ball rolling on immigration reform when the only party that can effect change is silent.

I agree with much of what you have said.

However, in March of 2002 the House of Representatives, (Republican controlled) passed Bushes amnesty. The only person that saved us was Senator Robert Byrd and he shelved the bill. The Republicans were lined up to push it through.

Go to google and search Senator Byrd illegal immigration. In the FAIR article it will also give you Brit Humes report with some Republican congresswoman.

As you know, Mexico has been slapping us around in the UN and with illegal immigration. They snubbed us with Iraq so big deal, we didn't party on cinco de mayo.

If you really think Bush is against amnesty or even feels slightly betrayed by Mexico, then why did this happen yesterday??????

Go to www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?idc=64563

Yes, the "happy pappy" George H Bush set up a meeting with Fox and Dubya for November. Why, Why, Why????

If we just forced Mexico to reimburse us with oil for the criminal acts and prison costs of it's citizens, we'd have more oil than we could ever know what to do with. We need to get them to reimburse us for the free medical care and educations we've been providing. Oil for illegals is certainly more than fair ---the oil can go directly to the financial support of Mexicans here. The Mexicans won't agree to that no matter how we phrase it ---they don't intend to take care of their own problems.

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.