Tag Archives: Mexico

Chavez’s oil problems with China

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has repeatedly expressed his wishes to sell large amounts of oil to China in order to reduce or even stop his need to export it to the United States. The latest statement made by the country’s oil minister, Rafael Ramirez, is that the South American country plans to increase its oil sales to China to 200,000 barrels a day from the current 150,000. Chávez had previously said that he hoped to export 300,000 barrels a day to the Asian giant by the end of the year.

Chavez’s capacity to create controversy is undeniable. He is best pals with Fidel Castro, has signed arms deals with Russia and has visited his Iranian new friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly calling for the destruction of the U.S. echoing the Middle Eastern dictator’s words. It is ironic that although he hates the United States so much, he makes sure his oil shipments arrive without delay to this country’s ports obtaining revenues of millions if not billions of American, yes American dollars.

NEWS:

  • Venezuela: Iran’s Trade Exchanges with Venezuela to Boost to US$8 billion.  Venezuela’s Chavez Runs for Re-Election.
  • Brazil: Brazil’s Lula Closer to First Round Victory.
  • Mexico still Presidentless.
  • Raul Castro receives Hugo Chavez in Cuba.  Learn to live without me, Castro tells Cubans as he turns 80.  Iran, Cuba to expand industrial cooperation.
  • Bolivia’s President Morales drops to 68% approval.
  • Ortega Barely Edging Montealegre in Nicaragua.  Nicaragua: Energy Crisis gets worse
  • Ecuador, Chile sign agreements on petroleum cooperation, tariff cuts.
  • China free-trade pact clears final hurdle in Chile.  IMF applauds Chile.

View full version of the Americas Report (PDF)

For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at our new e-mail address: mengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.

Chavez, Iran, and terrorism

Hugo Chavez visited Iran at the end of July, now for the fifth time, since he took the reins of power in Venezuela. Not coincidentally, his visit took place in the midst of the war between Israel and Iran’s proxy, the terrorist group Hezbollah. Less coincidental is the fact that during his visit in Iran, Chavez strongly condemned Israel’s military action in Lebanon, comparing it with the Holocaust and accusing Israel of "terrorism and fascism". At this point Venezuela withdrew his ambassador from Israel and suggested diplomatic relations may be terminated forever.

It is not exactly that Chavez condemned Israel for using "excessive force" or called for an "immediate cease- fire". The main message sent by Hugo Chavez is that in this conflict he supports Hezbollah. When I asked a Venezuelan diplomat not a long time ago if Hugo Chavez disagrees with the Iranian president that Israel must be "wiped off" the map, the diplomat answered me "I can only speak for myself. I strongly object to that statement" Then, I asked him if Chavez shares the same thoughts. The diplomats’ answer was "I do not know". This may be very significant. During this last visit to Iran, Chavez received a special award , the "medal for honor", in gratitude for Chavez’s support of Iran’s nuclear program and for having defied the international community.

NEWS:

  • Venezuela: Sheehan, Chavez join to bash Bush, Iraq war.  Venezuela opens international bidding for offshore gas exploration.  Venezuela: Gazprom’s Venezuela deal alarms U.S.  Venezuela: Chavez to Visit Beijing
  • Mexico leftists target foreign banks in protest.
  • Brazil: Petrobras aims to produce in 2015 half of what Saudi Arabia does today.
  • Argentina: Russia Negotiates Arms Sales to Argentina.
  • Chile to Rejoin Andean Community Trade Bloc after 30 Years.
  • Cuba Says Fidel Castro Is Recovering.
  • Uruguay inks energy accord with Venezuela.
  • Ortega Still Has the Lead in Nicaragua.
  • ‘El Niño’ phenomenon approaching Peru again?
  • Colombia: High alert for Uribe inauguration

Editor’s Note:

  • CITGO’s owner – Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez

View the full version of the Americas Report (PDF)

For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at our new e-mail address: mengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.

Why Hezbollah attacked Argentina

Everyday we turn on the news we cannot escape the images of horror from the escalating conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah. Sadly, many people and countries blame Israel for what is happening while they turn their heads away from the facts. Here are some details many of us should keep in mind:

The United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon, or UNIFIL, was created by the United Nations, with the adoption of Security Council Resolution 425 and 426 on 19 March 1978, to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, secure international peace and security, and help the Lebanese Government implement its effective authority in the area. In 1999, Israel undertook a full withdrawal, which concluded in 2000 and their pullout was certified by the UN as complete. UNIFIL was to stay as observers in Southern Lebanon to monitor the area to make sure that the region remains disarmed. The UN extended UNIFIL’s mandate to expire July 31, 2006. So for years, the UN forces did not see the 13,000 missiles that arrived to Lebanon from Syria or Iran to the hands of Hezbollah, or never reported this issue to anyone.

Main News:

  • Mercosur wishes to strengthen negotiations with the Gulf.  Mercosur (2): MERCOSUR welcomes Venezuela, courts Mexico.
  • Mexico: Mexico’s Leftist Candidate Files Criminal Complaint against Election Authorities.
  • Argentina Doubles Tax on Natural Gas Exports to Chile.  Argentina, Venezuela to cooperate in oil exploitation.
  • Guatemala: Guatemala set to gain Security Council seat over Venezuela.
  • Venezuela: Venezuela, Belarus in "strategic alliance".  Venezuela to buy "best in the world" Sukhoi Su30 fighter jets from Russia.  Russia rebuffs U.S. call to rethink $1bln Venezuela arms deal.  Venezuela President Chavez to Sign Kalashnikov Rifle Plant Deal in Moscow.
  • Peru’s Toledo ends presidency on upswing.
  • Castro’s influence takes a hold in South America.
  • Nicaragua: The upcoming elections- who will influence the vote, the US or Chávez.

Editor’s Note:

  • The Tehran-Caracas Connection: The dangerous liaisons between Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

View the full version of the Americas Report (PDF)

For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at our new e-mail address: mengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org. If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.

Chavez’s war from Washington

By Eric Sayers

(Washington, D.C.): Over the course of his presidency that began in 1998, Hugo Chavez has managed to transform an emerging democracy and promising regional ally of the United States into an authoritarian state that is enemy to the Free World. In his own country, Chavez has rolled back democratic institutions and consolidated power by silencing the independent media and supporting aggressive tactics against the political opposition.

He has also sought to export the “Bolivarian revolution” by using the country’s vast oil wealth to support other would-be autocrats in neighboring countries’ elections – including most recently in Bolivia, Peru, Mexico and Nicaragua. All the while, Chavez has augmented his military with the assistance of other strongmen such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who recently delivered of a range of weapons to Venezuela, including fighter planes and Kalashnikov rifles.

While it is widely recognized that Chavez is working fastidiously to expand his influence throughout Latin America, his efforts have gone entirely unnoticed on another front – the U.S. homeland. His most potent tool and single greatest accomplishment in this campaign, moreover, has been the establishment of a base of operations in our very capital from which to engage the United States in the war of ideas.

The War at Home

Founded in 2003, the Venezuelan Information Office (VIO) has hardly attempted to disguise the influence operation it is running for Chavez. In fact, VIO openly acknowledges that it receives funding from the Venezuelan government – to the tune of an estimated $800,000 annually – to “educate the public about contemporary Venezuela…[and] to present an accurate view of the current political scene in Venezuela for the American public and build allies for the Venezuelan people.”

The VIO’s objective, then, is to create within the United States a base of support for, or at least sympathy with, the Chavez regime that can be used as leverage to prevent the United States from adopting the measures necessary to check the dictator’s regional and global ambitions. This is accomplished in several ways:



  • One of its primary missions is to serve as a media “watchdog” by monitoring U.S. news coverage and commentary on Venezuela that challenges “factual inaccuracies.” VIO not only entrusts its staff with authoring responses to material unfavorable toward Chavez, but it also organizes “Action Alerts” that provide would-be writers a how-to on opinion letter writing, complete with talking points.


  • Hardly reactionary, however, VIO also produces positive commentary on its website – which receives up to 15,000 hits per day according to its staff – on the state of Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution.” These propaganda pieces fall under headings such as: “Democracy in Venezuela,” aimed at dispelling the notion that the country has slipped into autocracy; “International Cooperation,” emphasizing Venezuela’s commitment to being a peaceful, law-abiding neighbor and member of the international community; and “The Opposition,” pointing to the media and political opposition’s corruption.


  • VIO’s website also offers a “Take Action” section that promotes “10 things you can do to support the revolution.” Among other methods, it encourages readers to join or start their own “Bolivarian Circles,” and provides information on how to go about doing this. Ostensibly, these loosely knit social organizations are intended to improve local communities, but in reality serve as solidarity networks and as mini-VIOs operating throughout the United States, organizing support for Chavez and his agenda. It has been reported on numerous occasions, moreover, that these groups have used violence against Chavez opponents and members of the media.


  • The organization facilitates Potemkin-village vacations for American citizens wishing to travel to Venezuela. As explained by VIO Executive Director Deborah James, the purpose of these trips is to show Americans “the incredible social transformation that is happening in Venezuela, and in particular when they learn about the use of oil revenues to benefit all Venezuelans, people contact us so that we provide them with ways they can work against U.S. intervention.”


  • VIO has informally allied itself with various other leftist and radical groups in the United States, with whom it appears at peace and social justice events. Its staff has also contacted and visited different college campuses across the country where they distribute literature and VIO’s propaganda tool-of-choice – DVD copies of “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,” a pro-Chavez documentary on the 2002 Venezuela coup.


  • Finally, VIO directly lobbies U.S. policymakers. Among these activities, its staff is in frequent contact with congressional and administration offices – claiming about 100 visits per year, in addition to countless phone calls and emails.

We’ve Seen This Before

Chavez’s influence operation is not without precedent. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union also established a base within the United States from which to engage the Free World in a war of ideas – the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA). Directly funded by the Soviet government, CPUSA worked tirelessly to counter anti-Soviet rhetoric, expand its membership, and distribute its own version of the truth in order to create support for the Evil Empire.

Recognizing the CPUSA as a propaganda front for the Soviet Union, however, America of yore correctly chose to confront the enemy by passing the Subversive Activities Control Act (SACA) of 1950, which recognized CPUSA as an “agency of a hostile foreign power” that constitutes “a clear, present and continuing danger to the security of the United States.” Under SACA’s provisions, the U.S. government acted decisively to counter the internal communist threat by requiring the registration of communist organizations with the Attorney General, while asserting the ability to deport members of these groups who were non-citizens.

Unlike decades past, however, the United States today does little to counter foreign propaganda, aside from requiring groups that receive foreign funding to register with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 that was originally set up to track Nazi propaganda. Even this is of little consequence, as the unit within the Justice Department that administers FARA is severely under-funded – so badly that its computer database is reported to be on the verge of “a collapse that cannot be fixed” – and consequently is unable to keep tabs on such organizations.

The Bottom Line

The well-funded and well-organized propaganda campaign run by Chavez through the Venezuela Information Office represents a direct effort by a hostile foreign government to organize popular resistance within the United States. Thus far, VIO has been able to fly below the radar, receiving attention only from a small collection of Venezuelan bloggers. Its efforts to influence U.S. policy toward Chavez’s government must be taken seriously.

Congress should begin by providing the funding necessary to ensure the FARA Unit can maintain a database of all information relating to the lobbying practices of foreign governments. Beyond this, insufficient policies currently regulating the types of organizations that can register under FARA must be updated to account for the origins and intentions of applicants. Immediately in order, then, is the formation of a new unit within the DOJ that has the power to deny applications from groups that hope to run influence operations for openly antagonistic governments.

The United States simply cannot afford to remain unilaterally disarmed on this front as on so many others in the war of ideas. Confronted once again by an enemy attempting to destroy the Nation from within, we must recapture our national resilience that was evident in the earliest days of the Cold War, and confront those forces hostile to the Free World.

Who’s losing Latin America?

Decision Brief                                       No. 06-D 23                           2006-05-01


(Washington , D.C.): Millions of illegal immigrants are marching in America ‘s streets and boycotting jobs, schools and merchants. Their explicit purpose is to blackmail our government into granting rights to which they are not entitled.


Good Here, Bad There


These activities demonstrate two realities: First, life is good in this country and the opportunities for economic advancement are extraordinary for those willing to work hard.


Second, life is typically not so good in Mexico and the other Latin American nations from which these illegal aliens principally come. Unfortunately, if present political, economic and social trends continue south of our border, there will likely be many more immigrants coming here unlawfully in search of better lives, and to flee increasingly hard ones in their own countries.


In fact, a prospective surge in illegal immigration – perhaps coupled with a further radicalization of those already in this country – are just some of the reasons why these worrisome trends should command far greater attention from American policy-makers and citizens alike. Despite the serious and almost-without-exception adverse implications of events throughout Central and South America for our strategic, trade and security interests, however, neither the Bush Administration nor either party in Congress is doing much to address them.


Among the indicators of trouble ahead are the following ominous developments:


Cuban dictator Fidel Castro has been rescued from oblivion by the oil wealth and vaulting strategic ambitions of his most promising prot?g?, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The two authoritarians have adopted a new strategy, born of the realization that radical anti-American leftists can be brought to power throughout the hemisphere the same way Chavez was – by ballots, rather than bullets.


Funding and organizational support from Venezuela is making the electoral playing-field uneven across the region, giving a formidable advantage to populist revolutionaries over their democratic opponents. Once in office, the latter can rely not only on money from Chavez and his Islamofascist (for example, Iranian) and Chinese friends. They can also elicit muscle from Castro’s foreign legion (Communist Cuban special forces, police, praetorian guards, doctors and teachers) to help consolidate control and eliminate their opponents.


This phenomenon is already well-advanced in Bolivia , where Evo Morales was elected president in December, after fomenting populist upheavals to topple not one but two elected governments. He has moved rapidly in the ensuing months to neutralize the parliament, constitution and judiciary that might act as checks on his steady accretion and exercise of power.


In Peru , another would-be dictator, Ollanta Humala, has won the first round of balloting to replace outgoing President Alejandro Toledo. While it is not clear at this writing whether he will prevail in the upcoming run-off, Humala’s inflammatory rhetoric (threatening the country’s political elite and its constitutional democracy, admiring the violent terrorist group known as the Shining Path and signaling a willingness to go to war with neighboring Chile ) represents a frightening prospect for Peru , the region and U.S. interests. Even if Humala loses, it is not clear that he will refrain from fomenting trouble for the new government – and the rest of us.


Bolivia and Peru are relatively distant and it is seductive to discount them as security problems for the United States . The same cannot be said of Mexico , which will hold a presidential election in July. Polls have long suggested that the likely winner will be Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the rabidly anti-American former mayor of Mexico City .


Like others of his persuasion, Lopez Obrador’s bid appears to have benefited from financing and help on the ground from his soulmates in Caracas and Havana , who clearly relish the prospect of extending their axis to the border of the United States. While the race has of late become increasingly competitive, as the conservative PAN party’s candidate Felipe Calderon has gained ground, Washington confronts the distinct possibility of having an explicitly hostile government in Mexico.


The implications of such an outcome could be far-reaching for the integrity of our southern frontier, illegal immigration, drug-trafficking, terrorism, trade and the radical “reconquista” movement (which is intent on “taking back” at least parts of the United States for Mexico). Even under the relatively friendly government of Vincente Fox, as Heather Mac Donald pointed out last November, “Mexican officials here and abroad are involved in a massive and almost daily interference in American sovereignty.” Imagine what representatives of an unfriendly Mexican apparat might do.


Then, there is Nicaragua. All other things being equal, the Marxist Sandinista party still led by Commandante Daniel Ortega is poised – with help, ironically, from both the Venezuelan and American governments – to win national elections in November. For his part, Chavez is pumping money and possibly agents into his allies’ campaign.


The Bush Administration is doing its part by unabashedly and ham-handedly backing Eduardo Montealegre, a foreign minister under the discredited former president, Arnoldo Aleman. Montealegre has fractured the anti-Sandinista democrats and his candidacy seems likely to precipitate their defeat. Yet, Washington refuses to reconsider and either support the candidate of the largest and best organized pro-democracy party, the Constitutionalist Liberals, because of its association with Aleman – or at least remain neutral.


The Bottom Line


The consequence of all these elections may well be the complete undoing of Ronald Reagan‘s legacy of successfully countering and, with the notable exception of Castro’s Cuba , defeating totalitarianism in our hemisphere. At some point in the not-too- distant future, the question will be asked, probably with political repercussions: “Who lost Latin America ?”


There is still time for the Bush Administration and Congress to avoid this stigma by countering these trends and their strategic implications. But to do so, they will have to engage far more vigorously against Latin America ‘s enemies of freedom, investing considerably greater human and financial resources, high-level attention and political capital in once again securing our hemisphere.


 

Secure America

Decision Brief                                       No. 06-D 19                          2006-04-10


(Washington, D.C.): In the aftermath of last week’s Senate meltdown over immigration legislation and ongoing mass demonstrations meant to compel more sympathetic treatment for illegal aliens, official Washington seems poised once again to give short shrift to contrary sentiments of millions of American citizens. All other things being equal, their views will be trumped by the folks who have dominated our dysfunctional border security and workplace policies for years: the vocal, highly disciplined and well-financed special interest comprised of immigration lawyers, Latino activist organizations and businesses that have long prospered by exploiting illegal aliens.


Take the Pledge


Despite the political pressure to grant a far-reaching amnesty to immense numbers of illegal aliens (perhaps as many as 20 million according to a recent Bear Stearns study) being exercised by those taking to the streets, the American people have an opportunity over the next two weeks to reverse this dynamic that entails real national security, as well as socio-economic, risks. One way to do so would be by challenging elected officials (and wannabes) to endorse the “Secure America ” pledge .


This pledge has been endorsed by more than 30 organizations active in the public policy debate about immigration matters. It offers ten common sense principles that should govern our policies in these areas. Politicians who want our votes should be asked to confirm that they support the following principles:


1. The purpose of U.S. immigration policy is to benefit the citizens of the United States .


2. Since immigration policy can profoundly shape a country, it should be set by deliberate actions, not by accident or acquiescence, with careful consideration to ensure that it does not adversely affect the quality of life of American citizens and their communities.


3. Immigration policy should be based on and adhere to the rule of law. Immigration laws must be enforced consistently and uniformly throughout the United States .


4. Non-citizens enter the United States as guests and must obey the rules governing their entry. The U.S. government must track the entry, stay, and departure of all visa-holders to ensure that they comply fully with the terms of their visas, or to remove them if they fail to comply .


5. The borders of the United States must be physically secured at the earliest possible time . An effective barrier to the illegal entry of both aliens and contraband is vital to U.S. security.


6. Those responsible for facilitating illegal immigration shall be sought, arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law and shall forfeit any profits from such activity. This applies to smugglers and traffickers of people, as well as to those involved in the production, procurement, distribution, or use of fraudulent or counterfeit documents.


7. U.S. employers shall be given a simple and streamlined process to determine whether employees are legally eligible to work . Employers who obey the law shall be protected both from liability and from unfair competition by those who violate immigration law. The violators shall be subject to fines and taxes in excess of what they would have paid to employ U.S. citizens and legal residents for the same work.


8. Those who enter or remain in the United States in violation of the law shall be detained and removed expeditiously. Illegal aliens shall not accrue any benefit, including U.S. citizenship, as a result of their illegal entry or presence in the United States.


9. No federal, state or local entity shall reward individuals for violating immigration laws by granting public benefits or services, or by issuing or accepting any form of identification, or by providing any other assistance that facilitates unlawful presence or employment in this country. All federal and law enforcement agencies shall cooperate fully with federal immigration authorities, and shall report to such authorities any information they receive indicating that an individual may have violated immigration laws.


10. Illegal aliens currently in the United States may be afforded a one-time opportunity to leave the United States without penalty and seek permission to reenter legally if they qualify under existing law . Those who do not take advantage of this opportunity will be removed and permanently barred from returning.


AMLO’s Assault?


The need for such commitments is all the greater in light of worrying prospect: the sorts of illegal immigration-related problems evident today may pale by comparison with those that might arise should Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador succeed Vincente Fox this summer as president of Mexico . AMLO (as he is known in Mexico ) as mayor of Mexico City made no secret of either his radical leftist political proclivities or his affinity for the virulent anti-Americanism of Venezuela ‘s Hugo Chavez .


Such a Mexican leader can be counted upon to maintain his country’s own draconian treatment of illegal aliens; for example, as the Center for Security Policy’s J. Michael Waller has noted, it is a felony – yes, a felony – to be an illegal alien in Mexico . AMLO will also surely be tempted to use the rising assertiveness of his countrymen illegally in the United States not only to block legislation that would restore the rule of (immigration) law here . He may also encourage them to advance the extreme Mexican nationalists’ agenda of “reconquista” or “taking back” America .


The Bottom Line


There is no time to lose in securing America . Make sure over the next two weeks that your representative – or those who wish to represent you – pledge to do so.


 

The Mexican solution

The Congress has received lots of free advice lately from Mexican government officials and illegal aliens waving Mexico ‘s flag in mass demonstrations coast-to-coast. Most of it takes the form of bitter complaints about our actual or prospective treatment of immigrants from that country who have gotten into this one illegally – or who aspire to do so.

If you think these critics are mad about U.S. immigration policy now, imagine how upset they would be if we adopted an approach far more radical than the bill they rail against which was adopted last year by the House of Representatives – namely, the way Mexico treats illegal aliens.

In fact, as a just-published paper by the Center for Security Policy’s J. Michael Waller points out, under a constitution first adopted in 1917 and subsequently amended, Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called "racist" and "xenophobic."

Mexico ‘s Glass House

For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:

  • Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles , New York and elsewhere in recent days.
  • Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones . Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."
  • Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico . serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports
  • Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers . A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.

In accordance with Article 130, immigrants – even legal ones – may not become members of the clergy, either.

  • Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights . For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."
  • Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country." What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16 states, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right!
  • The Mexican constitution states that foreigners – not just illegal immigrants – may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

The Bottom Line

As the immigration debate in the Senate moves into a decisive phase this week, legislators who believe America ‘s southern border must be secured, the Nation’s existing immigration laws enforced and illegal aliens not rewarded with permanent residency and a direct path to citizenship are being sharply criticized and, in some cases, defamed as bigots and xenophobes. Yet, even their maximalist positions generally pale in comparison with the treatment authorized by the Mexican constitution.

So the next time such legislators – and the majority of Americans for whom they speak – are assaulted by Mexican officials, undocumented aliens waving Mexican flags in mass demonstrations here in the United States, clergy and self-described humanitarians, businessmen and other advocates of illegal immigration ask them this: Would they favor having the U.S. impose the same restrictions on immigrants – legal and illegal – that Mexico imposes on their counterparts there?

Nothing of the kind is in the cards, of course. Nor should it be. Legal immigration and the opportunity for foreign investors and other nationals legitimately to contribute to this country are not only one of its hallmarks; they are among the reasons for its greatness.

Still, we should not allow the hypocrisy of others’ treatment of undocumented aliens in their countries to induce us to refrain from taking effective steps to prevent further illegal immigration: by building a fence along our southern border; by enforcing immigration laws in the workplace and elsewhere; and by discouraging more such violations – with potentially grave national security implications – by dealing effectively with those who have already broken those laws by coming here without permission.

Mexico’s immigration law: Let’s try it here at home

By J. Michael Waller

Mexicohas a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That’s too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the US look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

  • in the country legally;
  • have the means to sustain themselves economically;
  • not destined to be burdens on society;
  • of economic and social benefit to society;
  • of good character and have no criminal records; and
  • contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

  • immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
  • foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
  • foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
  • foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
  • foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
  • those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law?  It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens – and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.

It is an interesting law – and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United Statesadopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution.[1] Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.

Pages: 1 2 3

Mexico’s immigration law

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That’s too bad, because Mexico , which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico .

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the US look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem.

View full paper (Web)

View full paper (PDF)

Secure America

Decision Brief     No. 05-D 61                                        2005-11-28


(Washington, D.C.): President Bush is a man on a mission this week. He is seeking to reinvigorate his leadership and rehabilitate his public standing by addressing an issue of enormous import to the country and of no less concern to its citizens: the insecurity of our borders and the dysfunction of our immigration policies.


It remains to be seen whether Mr. Bush will benefit politically from his visits to border states and meetings with those charged with protecting them and the rest of us from illegal aliens – many of whom are looking for economic opportunity, but some of whom may well be terrorists.


The Secure America Pledge


More importantly, whether the country will benefit from the President’s current, intense focus on immigration-related issues will depend on whether he agrees with the following ten principles:



1. The purpose of U.S. immigration policy is to benefit the citizens of the United States.


2. Since immigration policy can profoundly shape a country, it should be set by deliberate actions , not by accident or acquiescence, with careful consideration to ensure that it does not adversely affect the quality of life of American citizens and their communities.


3. Immigration policy should be based on and adhere to the rule of law. Immigration laws must be enforced consistently and uniformly throughout the United States.


4. Non-citizens enter the United States as guests and must obey the rules governing their entry. The U.S. government must track the entry, stay, and departure of all visa holders to ensure that they comply fully with the terms of their visas or to remove them if they fail to comply.


5. The borders of the United States must be physically secured at the earliest possible time. An effective barrier to the illegal entry of both aliens and contraband is vital to U.S. security.


6. Those responsible for facilitating illegal immigration shall be sought, arrested, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law and shall forfeit any profits from such activity. This applies to smugglers and traffickers of people, as well as to those involved in the production, procurement, distribution, or use of fraudulent or counterfeit documents.


7. U.S. employers shall be given a simple and streamlined process to determine whether employees are legally eligible to work. Employers who obey the law shall be protected both from liability and from unfair competition by those who violate immigration law. The violators shall be subject to fines and taxes in excess of what they would have paid to employ U.S. citizens and legal residents for the same work.


8. Those who enter or remain in the United States in violation of the law shall be detained and removed expeditiously. Illegal aliens shall not accrue any benefit, including U.S. citizenship, as a result of their illegal entry or presence in the United States.


9. No federal, state, or local entity shall reward individuals for violating immigration laws by granting public benefits or services, or by issuing or accepting any form of identification, or by providing any other assistance that facilitates unlawful presence or employment in this country. All federal and all law-enforcement agencies shall cooperate fully with federal immigration authorities and shall report to such authorities any information they receive indicating that an individual may have violated immigration laws.


10. Illegal aliens currently in the United States may be afforded a one-time opportunity to leave the United States without penalty and seek permission to reenter legally if they qualify under existing law. Those who do not take advantage of this opportunity will be removed and permanently barred from returning.


These principles are contained in a platform called the “Secure America” Pledge. The pledge has been endorsed by more than thirty organizations concerned with the national interest and the threat posed to it by insecure borders and illegal immigration. The hope is that every serving or would-be office-holder in the country will be asked whether they support the Secure America principles, starting with the President of the United States. (For more on this initiative, see War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World (Naval Institute Press, 2005)).


Applying the Pledge


By so doing, the voters can establish at last whether they are supporting candidates who will represent their commonsense views on such things as:



-the need to secure our borders – starting with a fence along the U.S.-Mexico boundary (see www.WeNeedaFence.com) and the augmentation with military personnel of those who patrol it to prevent futher millions from entering this country illegally every year;


-the imperative of cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens;


-ensuring that we are at least as rigorous about monitoring who comes into and leaves this country as are video rental stores and credit card companies about the status of their products;


-calling on all law enforcement agencies to support the mission of our sorely overstretched immigration authorities; and


-dramatically tightening up on visa procedures, not least by abandoning the “visa lottery” that amounts to playing Russian roulette with terrorist applicants.


The Bottom Line


If George W. Bush can now embrace such principles and pledge to work for their implementation in the foregoing ways, he has an excellent chance of securing anew the the support of the American people. Without this commitment, he is unlikely to do so – and, worse yet, he will be unable to fulfill his first duty, which is to secure America.