"Mexico will give nothing in exchange for a ""migratory accord"" with the United States"
That's what Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez said in no uncertain terms in an interview last week, in the city of San Luis Potosi, Mexico. ["Nada a cambio de acuerdo migratorio con EU: Derbez," El Universal, August 18th, 2003)
Derbez' comment was meant for domestic, not American, consumption. But thanks to VDARE.com, American readers too have access to it!
You have to give Derbez credit for speaking honestly about what we've figured out anyway. As Mexican pundit Luis Rubio, a thoughtful critic of the Mexican government, has written:
"Migration was never formulated as a subject of negotiation...we weren't negotiating anything, but demanding concessions from the Americans." ("Petroleo y migración", Luis Rubio, Reforma, May 18th, 2003)
Several months ago, an American congressman unleashed an onslaught of invective here by proposing that Mexico open its energy sector in exchange for a ""migratory accord"." But now Foreign Minister Derbez makes it clear that NOTHING will be given in exchange for our surrending our immigration to Mexican control.
Derbez, by the way, is scheduled to visit Washington D.C. in September.
Wouldn't it be something if some intrepid reporter would ask him about this quite undiplomatic statement?
But, given the superficial coverage of Mexican politics provided by the mainstream American media, that's too much to ask.
Not that a ""migratory accord"" with Mexico is a good idea—under even the best of circumstances.
The right to control immigration is an essential attribute of a sovereign state. When it loses that right, it's no longer sovereign. Constitutionally, immigration and naturalization are the responsibility of Congress (the U.S. Congress, that is, though the Mexican Congress deals with U.S. immigration also).
A "migratory accord" with Mexico would give a foreign government legal control over U.S. immigration policy. The Mexican government is doing a pretty effective job of gaining such control already. But a "migratory accord"," being a treaty, would become the law of the land.
Not only did Derbez say Mexico wouldn't give us anything for an accord, but the foreign minister actually had the gall to say that Mexico was doing the U.S. a favor:
"We will never give anything in exchange [for a ""migratory accord""]. In exchange, we are [only] giving the talent of our people, of our workers, of our Mexicans, the education that they bring and above all a very positive contribution, as much to the economy as to the society." ["Nunca daremos nada a cambio (de un acuerdo migratorio). A cambio (sólo) estamos dando la capacidad de nuestras personas, de nuestros trabajadores, de nuestros mexicanos, la educación que llevan y sobre todo una contribución muy positiva tanto a la economía como a la sociedad." – My translation]
Mexican apologists for mass emigration are fond of saying things like this—even attributing U.S. economic success to Mexican immigrants.
In the U.S., mass Mexican emigration drives down wages for lower-income workers, drives up public expenditure in areas such as medicine and education, increases crime, exacerbates various social problems, and, in conjunction with the misguided politics of multiculturalism, may just break up the country.
On the Mexican side, remittances from Mexicans working in the U.S. pump about 10 billion dollars or so into Mexico.
But, as a friend of Mexico, I must point out that remittances, and the way they are distributed, damage the Mexican work ethic and discourage economic development here. The siren call of northward emigration depopulates rural areas, and separates families.
It even encourages Mexicans who already have a job here to emigrate. I know of a case where a business owner left his business here to move illegally to the U.S.—he's now receiving government benefits at a prominent American city you've probably heard of.
And not much of that 10 billion dollars gets invested in long-term job creation either. It does, however, encourage the Mexican government, of whatever political persuasion, to forgo serious economic reform. Why fix things here when they can continue to send the poor northward?
The legacy of Derbez' boss, Vicente Fox, is in serious trouble anyway. The election of Fox in 2000 seemed like a breath of fresh air, and he was hailed both here and abroad as a great reformer. Now, three years later, "the thrill is gone" and there's little to show for it. In Mexico's recent congressional campaign, Fox's PAN party was so bereft of new ideas it resorted to re-broadcasting, as a campaign advertisement, film footage of Fox in the election of 3 years ago!
Several months back, the Fox administration triumphantly announced that there are now 3 million fewer poor Mexicans than when Fox took office. Even accepting such a figure at face value (which many don't),and defining what you mean by poverty—how many Mexicans have emigrated to the U.S. since Fox took office? According to Derbez himself, each and every year, 400,000 Mexicans take off for the U.S.A! That's pretty much the extent of the Mexican government's poverty reduction program!
In San Luis Potosí, Derbez also spoke positively of the cooperation of the Catholic Church in immigration policy . He meant Catholic leaders who promote open borders.. "They have a clear idea of what the Mexicans suffer in the United States", said Derbez. ["Nunca daremos nada a cambio del acuerdo migratorio: Derbez," El Siglo de Torrean, August 19th, 2003].
Here's a question the Washington press corps can ask Foreign Minister Derbez:
If Mexicans are suffering so badly in the U.S.A.—why encourage them to go there?
American citizen Allan Wall lives and works legally in Mexico, where he holds an FM-2 residency and work permit, but serves six weeks a year with the Texas Army National Guard, in a unit composed almost entirely of Americans of Mexican ancestry. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here; his website is here. Readers can contact Allan Wall at firstname.lastname@example.org.