With voting scheduled for July 1, Mexico’s election fast approaches. According to a recent Reforma poll, the winner will be Leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, or AMLO, of the Together We Will Make History coalition. He leads Ricardo Anaya, of the “conservative” (see below) For Mexico to the Front Coalition, 48-26. Jose Antonio Meade of the Everybody for Mexico coalition is in the basement at 18 points. My position: a strong America need not care.

AMLO’s success has caused some hysteria stateside. Unsurprisingly, You Know Who gets the blame. Thus the Washington Post editorialized that President Trump’s tweets “may enhance the already strong possibility that the July 1 ballot will be won by a left-wing populist who is as hostile to free trade and close U.S.-Mexican relations as is Mr. Trump” [U.S.-Mexico relations might be about to get even worse, April 6, 2018]. But Real Clear Politics offered a more reasoned—and reasonable—assessment: “In reality, Trump’s real impact will be minuscule, because this contest is shaped by its own powerful dynamic completely outside the influence of our commander-in-chief” [The Coming Mexican Election: It’s not All About Trump, by Chris Jackson and Clifford Young, April 19, 2018].

Yet whatever AMLO’s advantage, the election is no done deal. Plus, in a Mexican presidential race, a candidate only needs a plurality to win. Current President Enrique Pena Nieto won in 2012 with 38.21% of the vote versus 31.59% for runner-up AMLO. Previous President Felipe Calderon won with 35.89% of the vote versus runner-up AMLO with 35.31%. And back in 2000, Vicente Fox won the Mexican presidency with 42.52% of the vote.

Not a majority vote among them.

From an American National Question standpoint, the election is interesting but not worrying. As long as we have a patriot president, who runs Mexico shouldn’t matter a hill of beans.

Although the WaPo editorial claimed that AMLO “just happens to be the candidate who has pushed back most strongly against the abuse Mr. Trump has aimed at Mexicans,” if you want to see some real anti-American rhetoric, listen to the “conservative” Anaya, who is clearly running for Trump Basher In Chief. Anaya, remember, belongs to PAN, allegedly the “right-wing” and “pro-American” party, as we were told  again and again when Vicente Fox was president. Anaya’s proposals deserve a look even if it appears he can’t win. They might become Mexican policy.

Anaya visited California to address the “Mexican community” and defend DREAMers. And he wants to cut off all cooperation with us as long the U.S. “remains hostile.” That’s code for Trump’s unspeakable crime of thinking we should control our border.

Let’s start with the Trump-bashing:

If President Trump wants to continue utilizing the DREAMers as a bargaining chip, using racist language, we are going to put all the aspects of the bilateral relationship on the table. We Mexicans have a historic debt to our fellow Mexicans in the United States

[Ofrece Anaya política de apoyo a migrantes mexicanos (Anaya offers policy of support to Mexican migrants) El Siglo de Torreon, April 13, 2018].

What does Anaya propose? According to Siglo, Anaya “offered a policy of support and defense for the 37 million Mexicans who live in the United States.”

What a minute! 37 million? Wouldn’t that include American-born citizens of Mexican descent going back several generations?

Why yes, Virginia Dare, it would. But that’s how Mexicans view American citizens of Mexican ancestry. They are Mexicans first.

Siglo reports that Anaya “would propose a reform that, with the goal of them [Mexicans in the U.S.] having greater representation in [the Mexican] Congress, would reinforce the consulates, include them [Mexicans in the U.S.] in public spending decisions and defend the DREAMers against the U.S. government.:

He’s proposing a State Within A State.

Amusingly, ours later, Siglo reported that candidate Meade accused Anaya of political larceny:

In a press conference, Meade Kuribrena [second surname] stressed that the proposal of Ricardo Anaya to defend the DREAMers is simply a rehash [literally refrito, refried, as in refried beans!] of [Mexican] foreign policy”

[Acusa Meade a Anaya de plagiar sus temas de politica migratoria (Meade accuses Anaya of plagiarism on immigration policy issues) April 13, 2018].

The man with the British surname is right. Mexico is already doing these things. On this issue, all Mexican politicians sing off the same sheet of music.

But Anaya has gone even further. On April 18, in Tijuana, he delivered a speech from a podium with a sign proclaiming “No Al Muro” (“No to the Wall”), laying out seven principles of Mexican foreign policy, all related to the U.S. and immigration [Anaya aceptaría a deportados de EU… sólo si son mexicanos (Anaya would accept deportees from the United States…Only if they are Mexicans) El Excelsior, April 18, 2018; Con un ’No al muro’, Ricardo Anaya da a conocer las bases de su relación con Estados Unidos (With a “No To The Wall,” Ricardo Anaya Makes Known the Basis of his Relationship with the United States) Anaya Campaign Website, April 18, 2018].

These principles:

1) “Make national cooperation conditional upon the cessation of attacks and aggressions against Mexicans.”

What “attacks and aggressions?” Trump’s comments on immigration? Of course, on Mexico’s side of the border, any call for secure borders, or against immigrant crime or mass migration, is considered an “attack.”

2) “Only accept the deportation of migrants who document their Mexican nationality.”

So, as Jorge Castaneda has suggested, Mexico would not accept deported illegals unless they could prove Mexican citizenship—meaning an illegal could simply deny being a Mexican and we couldn’t deport them to Mexico. A determined U.S. administration could get around that, but another might look the other way.

As for Central American illegal aliens, I say that if they crossed into the U.S. via Mexico, they can be returned to Mexico.

3) “Send more resources for the judicial defense of the Mexican community inside the United States.”

Translation: Finance more meddling in favor of illegal aliens.

4) “Promote dialogue and common fronts within the civil society of both countries, especially between Mexican and American businessmen, whose business relations can be affected by commercial policies implemented by the United States.”

Translation: Work with U.S. leftists to further Mexican interests, and with American cheap-labor profiteers who promote illegal immigration.

5) “Establish policies that protect the rights of returning [to Mexico] migrants, guaranteeing their reintegration to the country or their own communities, under the principle of respect for their rights and their own identity and culture, with access to universal health care and support of their productive and economic initiative.”

Properly speaking, this is Mexican domestic policy, and Mexico should help returning migrants. It can start by helping them return!

6) “Defense of the DREAMers.”

Wait a minute. We’re constantly told that the DREAMers came here so young and have no connection with Mexico. So why is Anaya so keen on defending them?

7) ”Reduction of the Value Added Tax [IVA in Spanish] on the border.”

Sounds great, go for it.

And being in a border city, Anaya added this:

I want to reiterate here that when I am president of Mexico, I will say with absolute clarity and firmness to the government of the United States that Mexico will not pay one cent for the absurd wall which they propose to construct.

Roger that, amigo.

But if the wall is financed by taxing remittances, you’re between a rock and a hard place. Either accept the tax or tell Mexicans not to send money home.

We’re told that AMLO is a dangerous radical and that we should fear his presidency. But, when it comes to promoting Open Borders with the U.S. and sabotaging American sovereignty, Anaya has taken it farther than AMLO.

Of course, the Mexican president’s job is to look out for Mexican interests. Our president should look out for us. Let’s encourage him to do just that: Build the wall, stop immigration.

Let Mexican politicians squawk until they get over it.