The tragic deaths, on May 15, of 18 Mexicans being smuggled illicitly into Texas would never have occurred but for collusion at Mexico City's highest governmental levels with the culture of migration victimhood.Mexico, like the USA, underwent an epoch-making presidential election in 2000. In contrast to the disputed American outcome, Mexico's poll saw the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) - which had kept power for 71 years - forced dramatically from office on July 2 by Vicente Fox, candidate for the National Action Party (PAN).
OutspokenPresident Fox takes more pleasure in making his wants known to Washington than any other Mexican ruler has done since Lázaro Cárdenas, who left the Presidency in 1940. Fox exploits a demographic trend in American life so dramatic and recent that it remains hard to acknowledge, harder still to analyse: the population explosion among Mexican-Americans.
Whereas in 1970 Mexican-Americans numbered only around 800,000, they now number more than 10 million, only half of whom have a legal right to residence (
The American Conservative, March 10, 2003). Far from deploring this widespread illegality, Fox and his leading confidants actively rejoice in it.
Even before he took office, as well as later, Fox demanded that Washington remove sanctions against Mexican illegals north of the border (the very word 'illegal' for such migrants is now falling into official desuetude, the preferred euphemism being 'undocumented'); demanded that America's official guest-worker programme be expanded to the tune of several million
additional Mexicans; and demanded that those Mexicans eccentric enough to seek out migrant documentation at all should be aided still further in obtaining permanent American residence.
Fox insisted that America accept not simply elements of this package, but what his first Foreign Minister, Jorge Castañeda, breezily called 'the whole enchilada'. (Castañeda and Fox both, incidentally, favour drug decriminalisation [
Associated Press, March 19, 2001].)
In his 2001 Five-Year Plan Fox announced that he spoke, not just for those 100 million Mexicans still so unfortunate as to live south of the Rio Grande, but also for 'the more than 18 million who live abroad.'
Castañeda eventually ceded the Foreign Ministry to Luis Ernesto Derbez, but not before flatly stating how he would make American border control impossible: 'You know the age-old saying about how to eat an elephant. You do it a bite at a time' (
The Wall Street Journal, October 25, 2002). The 'bites' consisting, in Castañeda's case, of winning over municipal officials in America before risking a head-on confrontation against the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Lethal Mexican-born thugs on death row in American penitentiaries have been championed by the Fox regime as victims of judicial 'racism'. Predictably, America's Catholic bishops have chimed in with a collective plea that American border controls be scrapped altogether.
Meanwhile Juan Hernández, the Fox-appointed chairman of the Presidential Council for Mexicans Abroad, had proclaimed on American TV's
Nightline that 'I want the third generation, the seventh generation [of Mexican-Americans], I want them all to think 'Mexico first'' (
San Diego Union Tribune, July 17, 2002).
Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo politely reminded Hernández that 'when it [immigration] happens in a way that violates our laws, it's by definition
illegal immigration.' Hernández smilingly replied, 'Congressman, we're not talking about two countries - it's just one single region' (
The New American, July 1, 2002).
Fox talks also in the language of the more conventional one-world-government gang. In May 2002 he told a Madrid audience of his dream for a 'new global agenda' (
nueva agenda global). 'Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.'
Only one obstacle irked him: 'The Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supra-national organisations' (
VDARE, May 29, 2002).
Such remarks as these prompted New York attorney Howard Sutherland to write (
The American Conservative, March 10, 2003): 'The spectacle of a superpower being colonised by its impotent neighbour is without precedent in modern history.'
Send to a Friend |
Ask a Question |
Buy a Copy |
View Cart
