Calderon’s astonishing frankness about Mexican immigration law
Wolf Blitzer asked Mexican president Calderon a few questions as to how Mexico itself handles immigrants. From Gateway Pundit we get this dialog:
BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, can they just walk in?
Calderon evidently gives these answers without a trace of embarrassment considering that he just dumped on Arizona for doing a lot less. Notice he’s pretty forthcoming with his replies. How can be possibly reconcile the hypocrisy? The answer is simple: in his mind Arizona and much of the southwestern U.S. are really still part of Mexico, and Mexicans have every right to cross the border and take up residence. Then there is the matter of race. Non-whites may act differently towards other non-whites than whites are allowed to act towards non-whites in a similar situation. He sees no problem in his attitude and neither do the Democrats in Congress.
CALDERON: No! They need to fulfill, uh, a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedence.
BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?
CALDERON: Of course! Of course!
BLITZER: If somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico and they wind up in Mexico, they can get a job?
CALDERON: No, no, no.
BLITZER: They can work?
CALDERON: If somebody do that without permissions, we send—we send them back.
Call your local Democratic Congressman and ask him why he applauded.
I am amazed, not just at Calderon’s frank answers, but at Blitzer’s direct, no-nonsense questions. Normally, Blitzer is one of the worst leftists in TV newsland.
- end of initial entry -
Your analysis of Calderon’s thought process, and particularly of why he sees no contradiction or hypocrisy in his position, is definitive. He does not think of the United States, or at least of the southwestern part of the United States, as having a sovereign existence separate from that of Mexico. Until Americans understand this fundamental truth about Mexicans’ attitudes toward the U.S., we will continue to let them colonize us.
A. Zarkov writes:
As reported in the New York Times in 2007, Calderon said,
“I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico,” he said. “And, for this reason, the government action on behalf of our countrymen is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of their rights.”
How much of a direct threat to the U.S. sovereignty do we need? At one time such a remark from a head of state could provoke a war. But we had nothing but silence from George W. Bush to this unambiguous provocation. We might as well have had a dead tree stump as president.
Thanks for turning this up. Of course it is exactly in line with the statements of his predecessors and of the Mexican intellectual elite whom I quoted at length in my 2006 article, “The Second Mexican War” (which I’ve been linking repeatedly for the last day or so because it’s been so relevant in light of Calderon’s U.S. visit).
Notice also the parallel between the Mexican imperial thought process and that of Islam. Just as the moment that Islam establishes any hold on a previously non-Muslim land, that land becomes permanently a part of Dar al-Islam, the moment that a Mexican sets foot in any part of the United States, that part of the United States becomes a part of Mexico.
At the Gateway Pundit entry you linked to, here is a comment from “mark”:
“Senor Hypocrite Calderon: Why don’t you add Mexico to the list of AZ boycotters and stop sending all your drugs there.”
When I read this comment by Calderon: “I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico”, my first thought was that he was talking about the Dar al-Mexico. That was even before I read your following comment.
Great minds …
Robert in Nashville writes:
If according to Calderon, Mexico does not stop at its border (to the north), and, according to Obama this week, the United States is not defined by its border (to the south) then it sound like both agree: Either neither has a border, or both nations have a claim to one another’s land.
I suppose that “stop at” and “defined by” are somewhat different, the latter being more of a lofty America as an idea position, but is sure sounds like it throws the southern border open by mutual agreement. Our own President had no issue or conflict with the Mexican President’s territorial claim in our own capitol city! We shouldn’t be surprise if the great migration across the now unclaimed border grows, now that its status has been officially accepted as open- by both sides. Demographics and reduction of America to a vague ideology, not an actual land, makes the legislative issue increasingly irrelevant. I don’t know if it is even possible to invade an ideology.
A,. Zarkov writes:
Let’s not forget that Calderon is supposed to be a Mexican conservative. His election in 2006 provoked prolonged mass protests, marches, and civil disobedience. Calderon won by a razor-thin margin, receiving 35.89% of the total votes cast versus 35.31% for his PRD opponent Lopez Obrador. Thus two thirds of Mexican voters cast their ballots for far more radical candidates. One can only imagine what their position must be with regard to migration across the border they don’t recognize. We should also note that when Mexicans decide to migrate they refer to the U.S. as “El Norte” (the North). In other words, the U.S. is simply the northern region of Mexico in their minds. There is even a 1983 film titled “El Norte” (partly funded by our PBS) about two youths who flee Central America for Los Angeles.
“I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico,” he said. “And, for this reason, the government action on behalf of our countrymen is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of their rights.” This attitude is not restricted to Mexican leaders it is the norm among Mexican people living in the U.S., at least those I saw every day in Southern California. Even Americans of Mexican extraction tended to feel and talk this way, as though there were no differences between Mexico and the U.S., no border, no laws. Deportation was a joke to be laughed at, English a foreign language that need not be spoken. Americans just stupid people whose interests and preferences need not be taken into account, and whose wealth was to be used openly by all Mexican people. They really do just seem to think this is the way it should be, and in fact is. They refuse to see this as a separate country often stating with finality that “we are all on the same continent.” I am afraid it will take more than talk on our part to change this.
Talk would change a great deal about it. At present this collectively war like hostility of the Mexican government and people toward the United is not even being identified. The act of identifying and opposing it, by American media and government, would transform the situation.
Richard W. writes:
What is the proper response to Calderon’s thinking?
As I’ve been saying to you, and others focused on Islam, Mexico is a bigger problem for the USA. Mexico is to the USA as Islam is to Europe. Here in Washington we have this wonderful story of a Mexican illegal, deported NINE TIMES who has now been caught by the police and charged with rape.
While the Mexicans may not have an ideology of conquest like Islam, they have an everyday criminality that rivals anyone, anywhere. [LA replies: I disagree. They most certainly do have an ideology of conquest; it may not be consciously shared by all Mexicans, but they are acting in accordance with it.] There are already sections of every city in the West, even formerly wonderful enclaves of beauty and sanity like Portland and Seattle that are essentially no-go zones for white natives.
Here is the proper response to Calderon’s thinking. American leaders should (1) identify the fact that he and the entire Mexican establishment talk this way; (2) declare that this is a hostile stance against the United States and is totally unacceptable; (3) Remove through enforcement and attrition all Mexican illegal aliens from the U.S.; (4) remove the legal residency rights of all non-citizen Mexican green card holders and send them back to Mexico; (5) stop all future legal immigration from Mexico; (6) Pass a law declaring that any naturalized U.S. citizen of Mexican origin who avows the reconquista ideology has violated his oath of citizenship and therefore will be stripped of his citizenship and returned to Mexico; (7) Terminate NAFTA; (8) Terminate all negotiations for an enhanced North American and North-South American free trade zone; and (9) declare that until the Mexican government, schools, and media explicitly abandon and renounce their hostile reconquista ideology against the United States, the United States will admit no more Mexican immigrants and will not pursue any forms of economic and other cooperation with Mexico. Declare that we would be happy to have friendly relations with the Mexicans, but that the condition for such relations is that Mexico respect the sovereignty of the United States.
Bill Carpenter writes:
Our gutless elite doesn’t mind making us the punching bag for the whole world, as long as they get to sit on top of the punching bag. I’m reminded of Steve Sailer’s opinion that American elites are motivated by status vis-a-vis other Americans more than by any other consideration. They draw status from dictating policy no more how idiotic and destructive their policy is.
A president with any self-respect as president would cut off the “envios de dinero,” deport all illegals, allow zero legals, and build the wall. Unfortunately our presidents do not draw their self-respect from being our presidents, but from managing our decline.
Re: ” … the moment that a Mexican sets foot in any part of the United States, that part of the United States becomes a part of Mexico.”
The first time I heard about gangs it was about Mexican street gangs fighting over territory (streets) in Los Angeles. Thus, you have the xx street gang. This seems to be a component of Mexican/Hispanic culture—the claiming of territory. In southern California, you always know when you are entering a Mexican dominated neighborhood because you see graffiti on freeway signs, walls, and buildings. This is the marking of rival gangs “claiming their territory.” I have also noticed that when you see a family-owned Mexican restaurant, it is most often painted in the colors of the Mexican flag.
The U.S. is in no position to act in a hostile manner toward mexico because we need their oil. Mexico is the second largest source of imported oil for the United States. That is also why we cater to the Saudis because they are the third biggest source of imported oil. It is estimated that in ten years the Mexican oil fields will be exhausted and 40% of Mexican government revenue will disappear. This financial shrinkage will have devastating effect upon Mexico and it’s population and cause a mass movement “Al Norte” which will inundate U.S.A with Mexicans.
Natural resource shortages, finances and demographics are all interdependent. If you don’t study each of those subjects you cannot understand the depth of the problems we face and the limited choices we have.
But, as you just pointed out, Mexico needs to sell its oil. We can stop Mexican immigration, while still purchasing their oil. Nations have somehow engaged in trade with each other for centuries, without simultaneously allowing mass immigration from one country into the other, or believing that the condition of being able to purchase a product from a country is to allow an immigrant invasion from that country.
In addition to your proposals on what to do about Mexican immigration, we need to remove the many incentives the illegals have for coming here.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 21, 2010 08:06 PM | Send
By giving the children of illegals free public education and automatic citizenship, we’re rolling out the red carpet for them. In fact, I read a long time ago about how Mexicans and Central Americans believe that the streets of El Norte are “paved with gold.” In a way, they’re right. After all, we do give them the free education, citizenship, healthcare, etc. And don’t even get me started on these “anchor babies” then sponsoring all their relatives in a giant chain migration.
But anyway, your recommendation that we tell Mexico to stop teaching their kids reconquista ideology is fine. But how would we go about enforcing such a thing? Would you recommend having some American monitor sit it on classes in Mexico? [LA replies: it wouldn’t be difficult for the American embassy and consulates in Mexico to get copies of the text books used in Mexican schools.]
As for stripping the citizenship of naturalized Mexicans advocating reconquista, that’s also a great idea. But it’s easier said than done. First off, you’ll have libs all up in arms saying that these traitors have a right to free speech. (Did you know that before 1965, there was some kind of law against allowing people advocating the overthrow of our government to come here?) Also, I’m no lawyer, but I believe the current law is that citizenship can’t be revoked, and that it must be voluntarily surrendered. Of course that needs to change. America ideally needs to emulate Switzerland’s citizenship policy, which is extremely strict.
So anyway, you’re on the right path with all your suggested replies to Calderon. Howerver, removing the taxpayer funded goodies, like I suggested, gives your points more “teeth.”