The audacity of Mexico`s interference in U.S. immigration policy stands in sharp contrast to Mexico`s own jealous sense of sovereignty. It is difficult to imagine a country touchier about interference in its domestic affairs or less tolerant of immigrants. In 2002, for example, Mexico deported a dozen American college students (all in the country legally) who had joined a protest in Mexico City against a planned airport. Such participation, said Mexico, constituted illegal domestic interference. (It would be interesting to know how many Mexican students—legal and illegal— have participated with impunity in demonstrations in the U.S. against American immigration and educational policies.) During his confirmation hearings, U.S. ambassador Jeffrey Davidow said innocuously that the U.S. would encourage high participation in Mexico`s 2000 presidential election. A magazine editor rebuked him for "intromission in Mexico`s internal affairs." Davidow didn`t even dare visit the troubled state of Chiapas early in his tenure, knowing that the press would condemn it as illegal meddling.
Imagine if U.S. diplomats yowled constantly about Mexico`s unfair policies toward illegal Americans. Mexico would expel them instantly. This summer, U.S. ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza closed the U.S. consulate in Nuevo Laredo after a particularly bloody period of drug violence that included the assassination of the town`s police chief. Garza admitted to a reporter that he shut the consulate "in part" to punish Mexico for its failure to control the mayhem. Such measured language, in response to a public threat, provoked a sharp correction from Mexico`s deputy foreign secretary, Geronimo Gutierrez. Garza`s words, fumed Gutierrez, do "not correspond to the role of an ambassador." City Journal Autumn 2005 | Mexico`s Undiplomatic Diplomats by Heather Mac Donald