TexasCHLforum.com

Austin Statesman editorial 5/21/10 wrote:Progress, and little else, is stopped at the border

Editorial Board

In the best of times, the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico has been ambivalent. In the worst of times, the neighbors have spilled each other's blood.

The visit to the U.S. by Mexican President Felipe Calderón comes at a point somewhere between ambivalence and arms. Drug trafficking and illegal immigration are flash-point issues on both sides of the border, but for different reasons. Calderón's speech to a joint session of Congress on Thursday should have driven home the realization that the two nations, joined geographically by 2,000 miles of porous border, couldn't be any further apart.

Nothing that happened during the Mexican president's visit did much to bridge those differences despite the usual rhetoric of common purpose and the basic truth that the economic destinies of the two nations are intertwined.

The U.S. and Mexico see each other as a source of each other's problems, as they have since way before 1848, when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War. Mexico lost what is now the southwestern United States when that treaty was signed.

Calderón called anew for reconciling differences, while his remarks on guns and on the new Arizona law cracking down on immigration served to aggravate them. As his predecessors have learned, words about the need for mutual cooperation last for the duration of a state visit — if that — before dissipating in the ether of the curious U.S.-Mexico relationship. The U.S. view of Mexico is informed by geography, and the Mexican view of the U.S. is informed by economics.

Bad economic times in Mexico spur immigration — legal and illegal — to the U.S. and encourage other illicit and illegal activity. Good economic times in the U.S. mean more tourists spending money in Mexican resorts. Bad times here mean worse times there. And no matter how good or bad the economy gets in the U.S., there always seems to be money to buy illegal drugs.

Where the United States sees Mexico as a narcotics peddler, Mexicans see the U.S. as a narcotics consumer whose insatiable appetite for drugs funds the narcotics cartels that are wrecking Mexico's internal security. Moreover, as Calderón noted in his speech, cartels arm themselves with weapons smuggled in from the U.S. Restrictions on automatic weapons passed in 1994 expired six years ago in this country, and Calderón has urged their reinstatement. (emphasis added)

"I have great respect for President Calderón, but he really shouldn't turn this into an opportunity to tell us we should change our laws," snorted U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Mexicans bristle when U.S. officials criticize the way their country is governed or comment on its long and storied history of corruption.

It should have been no surprise, then, when Calderón's comments on the Arizona law prompted President Barack Obama — no fan of the law — to distance himself from his Mexican counterpart.

The Arizona law is discriminatory, the Mexican president declared on the first day of his visit. Obama replied that the law had the potential of being applied in a discriminatory manner — a difference that should not be chalked up to mere semantics.

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith's response to Calderón's criticism was predictable enough.

"Mexican government officials openly talk of a Mexican government boycott of Arizona but make no effort to prevent their citizens from going there," the San Antonio Republican declared. "These latest actions are part of a long history of interference in sovereign American affairs."

The reference to a "long history of interference" must have raised Mexican eyebrows because they see the U.S. as quick to interfere in Mexico's internal affairs.

The lack of progress was as predictable as it is unfortunate. Blaming each other for their problems does nothing to solve them.

My letter to the editor this morning in response wrote:In your May 21 editorial, you make one blatantly false statement about firearms and another that is purposely misleading. Allow me to correct your mistakes.

“Restrictions on (certain types of semi-)automatic weapons passed in 1994 expired six years ago.” Restrictions on automatic weapons were passed with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and have never been repealed.

Mexican “cartels (occasionally) arm themselves with weapons (illegally purchased) and smuggled in from the U.S.”

These straw purchases are already illegal in this country, and numerous reviews show that they represent a small percentage of guns used by Mexican cartels. Only 17% of the guns confiscated from cartels are traceable. Of that small percentage, 90% are traced to the US. More than 83% of cartel guns come from deserting Mexican soldiers and police, South American military sources, and East Asian and Russian black markets.

I’m sure the Statesman regrets these errors.

austinrealtor wrote:http://www.statesman.com/opinion/progre ... 00227.html

Austin Statesman editorial 5/21/10 wrote:Progress, and little else, is stopped at the border

Editorial Board

In the best of times, the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico has been ambivalent. In the worst of times, the neighbors have spilled each other's blood.

The visit to the U.S. by Mexican President Felipe Calderón comes at a point somewhere between ambivalence and arms. Drug trafficking and illegal immigration are flash-point issues on both sides of the border, but for different reasons. Calderón's speech to a joint session of Congress on Thursday should have driven home the realization that the two nations, joined geographically by 2,000 miles of porous border, couldn't be any further apart.

Nothing that happened during the Mexican president's visit did much to bridge those differences despite the usual rhetoric of common purpose and the basic truth that the economic destinies of the two nations are intertwined.

The U.S. and Mexico see each other as a source of each other's problems, as they have since way before 1848, when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War. Mexico lost what is now the southwestern United States when that treaty was signed.

Calderón called anew for reconciling differences, while his remarks on guns and on the new Arizona law cracking down on immigration served to aggravate them. As his predecessors have learned, words about the need for mutual cooperation last for the duration of a state visit — if that — before dissipating in the ether of the curious U.S.-Mexico relationship. The U.S. view of Mexico is informed by geography, and the Mexican view of the U.S. is informed by economics.

Bad economic times in Mexico spur immigration — legal and illegal — to the U.S. and encourage other illicit and illegal activity. Good economic times in the U.S. mean more tourists spending money in Mexican resorts. Bad times here mean worse times there. And no matter how good or bad the economy gets in the U.S., there always seems to be money to buy illegal drugs.

Where the United States sees Mexico as a narcotics peddler, Mexicans see the U.S. as a narcotics consumer whose insatiable appetite for drugs funds the narcotics cartels that are wrecking Mexico's internal security. Moreover, as Calderón noted in his speech, cartels arm themselves with weapons smuggled in from the U.S. Restrictions on automatic weapons passed in 1994 expired six years ago in this country, and Calderón has urged their reinstatement. (emphasis added)

"I have great respect for President Calderón, but he really shouldn't turn this into an opportunity to tell us we should change our laws," snorted U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Mexicans bristle when U.S. officials criticize the way their country is governed or comment on its long and storied history of corruption.

It should have been no surprise, then, when Calderón's comments on the Arizona law prompted President Barack Obama — no fan of the law — to distance himself from his Mexican counterpart.

The Arizona law is discriminatory, the Mexican president declared on the first day of his visit. Obama replied that the law had the potential of being applied in a discriminatory manner — a difference that should not be chalked up to mere semantics.

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith's response to Calderón's criticism was predictable enough.

"Mexican government officials openly talk of a Mexican government boycott of Arizona but make no effort to prevent their citizens from going there," the San Antonio Republican declared. "These latest actions are part of a long history of interference in sovereign American affairs."

The reference to a "long history of interference" must have raised Mexican eyebrows because they see the U.S. as quick to interfere in Mexico's internal affairs.

The lack of progress was as predictable as it is unfortunate. Blaming each other for their problems does nothing to solve them.

My letter to the editor this morning in response wrote:In your May 21 editorial, you make one blatantly false statement about firearms and another that is purposely misleading. Allow me to correct your mistakes.

“Restrictions on (certain types of semi-)automatic weapons passed in 1994 expired six years ago.” Restrictions on automatic weapons were passed with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and have never been repealed.

Mexican “cartels (occasionally) arm themselves with weapons (illegally purchased) and smuggled in from the U.S.”

These straw purchases are already illegal in this country, and numerous reviews show that they represent a small percentage of guns used by Mexican cartels. Only 17% of the guns confiscated from cartels are traceable. Of that small percentage, 90% are traced to the US. More than 83% of cartel guns come from deserting Mexican soldiers and police, South American military sources, and East Asian and Russian black markets.

I’m sure the Statesman regrets these errors.

tacticool wrote:Mexico benefits immensely from the narcotics trade. They don't want to stop it.

Mexican cartels, which control most of the cocaine and methamphetamine smuggled into the United States, bring an estimated $25 billion to $40 billion into Mexico from their global operations every year.

To put that in perspective: Mexico probably made more money in 2009 moving drugs than it did exporting oil, its single biggest legitimate foreign currency earner.

From the white Caribbean beaches of Cancun to violent towns on the U.S. border and the beauty parlors of Mexico City's wealthy suburbs, drug cash is everywhere in Mexico. It has even propped up the country's banking system, helping it ride out the financial crisis and aiding the country's economy.

On the whole, Mexico is a tremendous beneficiary of the drug trade. Even if some of the profits are invested overseas, the pool of remaining money flowing into Mexico creates tremendous liquidity in the Mexican economy at a time of global recession. It is difficult to trace where the drug money is going, which follows from its illegality. Certainly, drug dealers would want their money in a jurisdiction where it could not be easily seized even if tracked. U.S. asset seizure laws for drug trafficking make the United States an unlikely haven. Though money clearly flows out of Mexico, the ability of the smugglers to influence the behavior of the Mexican government by investing some of it makes Mexico a likely destination for a substantial portion of such funds.

The money does not, however, flow back into the hands of the gunmen shooting it out on the border; even their bosses couldn't manage funds of that magnitude. And while money can be - and often is - baled up and hidden, the value of money is in its use. As with illegal money everywhere, the goal is to wash it and invest it in legitimate enterprises where it can produce more money. That means it has to enter the economy through legitimate institutions - banks and other financial entities - and then be redeployed into the economy. This is no different from the American Mafia's practice during and after Prohibition.

pbwalker wrote:[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs[/youtube]

And from California! Go McClintock!

Dear Mr. Marquez:


Thank you for writing regarding my response to Mexican President Felipe Calderon's speech to Congress (to view my speech, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs> ). I have been encouraged to hear from thousands of Americans who, like you, believe that effective immigration policy requires enforcing current law and encouraging assimilation of legal immigrants.



Tomorrow afternoon I will be discussing immigration and President Calderon's speech on the Lou Dobbs radio show. If you would like to listen in, please visit my web site at http://www.mcclintock.house.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; <http://www.mcclintock.house.gov/> , and visit "Upcoming Media Appearances" on the homepage.



Thank you once again for your involvement on this critical issue.

Sincerely,

Tom

<http://www.youtube.com/user/McClintockC ... dx8gZDwZWs> <http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Congre ... 109?ref=ts> <http://twitter.com/RepMcClintock>
<https://iqs3.solutions.lmit.com/iqextra ... 13.7441748>

handog wrote:

pbwalker wrote:[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs[/youtube]

And from California! Go McClintock!

I had to send McClintock an email to give him a after hearing his responce. Here is the reply:

Dear Mr. handog:


Thank you for writing regarding my response to Mexican President Felipe Calderon's speech to Congress (to view my speech, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). I have been encouraged to hear from thousands of Americans who, like you, believe that effective immigration policy requires enforcing current law and encouraging assimilation of legal immigrants.


Tomorrow afternoon I will be discussing immigration and President Calderon's speech on the Lou Dobbs radio show. If you would like to listen in, please visit my web site at http://www.mcclintock.house.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, and visit "Upcoming Media Appearances" on the homepage.



Thank you once again for your involvement on this critical issue.

Sincerely,

Tom