Mexico Promises to Block US Border Wall Plan

[Cth]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK9N0G6.html#1

MEXICO CITY - The Mexican government, angered by a U.S. proposal to extend a wall along the border to keep out migrants, pledged Tuesday to block the plan and organize an international campaign against it. Facing a growing tide of anti-immigrant sentiment north of the border, the Mexican government has taken out ads urging Mexican workers to denounce rights violations in the United States. It also is hiring an American public relations firm to improve its image and counter growing U.S. concerns about immigration.

Mexican President Vicente Fox denounced the U.S. measures, passed by the House of Representatives on Friday, as "shameful" and his foreign secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, echoed his complaints on Tuesday.

"Mexico is not going to bear, it is not going to permit, and it will not allow a stupid thing like this wall," Derbez said.

"What has to be done is to raise a storm of criticism, as is already happening, against this," he said, promising to turn the international community against the plan.

Some stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border are already marked by fences, but in some heavily-trafficked sections walls have already been erected by the United States, often using 10-foot-high sections of military surplus steel. Those sections, which typically run several miles, can be found in southern Arizona and California.

It's hard to underestimate the ill-feeling the proposal has generated in Mexico, where editorial pages are dominated by cartoons of Uncle Sam putting up walls bearing anti-Mexican messages.

Many Mexicans, especially those who have spent time working in the U.S., feel the proposal is a slap in the face to those who work hard and contribute to the U.S. economy.

Fernando Robledo, 42, of the western state of Zacatecas, says the proposals could stem migration and disrupt families by breaking cross- border ties.

"When people heard this, it worried everybody, because this will affect everybody in some way, and their families," Robledo said. "They were incredulous. How could they do this, propose something like this?"

Robledo, whose son and mother are U.S. citizens, predicted the measure "would unleash conflict within the United States" as small businesses fail for lack of workers.

He said many Mexicans felt betrayed by the anti-immigrant sentiment.

"We learned to believe in the United States. We have a binational life," he said of Zacatecas, a state that has been sending migrants north for more than a century. "It isn't just a feeling of rejection. It's against what we see as part of our life, our culture, our territory."

The government is scrambling to fight on two fronts. On Monday, it announced it had hired Allyn & Company, a Dallas-based public relations company to help improve Mexico's image and stem the immigration backlash.

"If people in the U.S. and Canada had an accurate view of the success of democracy, political stability and economic prosperity in Mexico, it would improve their views on specific bilateral issues like immigration and border security," Rob Allyn, president of the PR firm, told The Associated Press Tuesday.

Jose Luis Soberanes, head of the government's National Human Rights Commission, suggested Mexico go further.

"I would expect more energetic reactions from our authorities," Soberanes told local media. "It's preferable to have a more demanding government, more confrontation with the United States."

Mexico has also said it is recruiting U.S. church, community and business groups to oppose the proposal.

And the government has stepped up its defense of migrants, airing a series of radio spots here aimed at migrants returning home for the holidays.

"Had a labor accident in the United States? You have rights ... Call," reads the ad, sponsored by Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, which has helped migrants bring compensation suits in the United States.

The sense of dread connected with the measures is hardly restricted to Mexico. Immigrant advocacy and aid groups in the United States are worried about provisions of the House bill that upgrade unlawful presence in the United States from a civil offense to a felony.

"It would have a horrific impact on immigrants right organizing and immigrant communities" in the United States, said Jennifer Allen of the Tucson, Ariz.-based Red de Accion Fronteriza.

The mistaken belief that the proposals are a done deal _ they must still be submitted to the Senate _ have caused "just complete fear and shock" among some activists and immigrants, Allen said.

The House bill, passed on a 239-182 vote, includes a proposal to build 700 miles of additional fence through parts of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. It would also enlist military and local law enforcement to help stop illegal entrants and require employers to verify the legal status of their workers.

Mexicans are outraged by the proposed measures, especially the extension of the border wall, which many liken to the Berlin Wall. Some are urging their government to fight it fiercely.

"Our president should oppose that wall and make them stop it, at all costs," said Martin Vazquez, 26, at the Mexico City airport as he returned from his job as a hotel worker in Las Vegas. "More than just insulting, it's terrible."

____

Associated Press reporter Victor Bermudez contributed to this report from Mexico City.

_____

On the Net:

http://presidencia.gob.mx/en/

[deadboy]

You know what makes me angry about this article?

Only one place in the entire article does it state anything about the fact that this is designed to stop ILLEGAL IMIGRATION. It is designed to stop people from commiting a crime.

"HOW DARE THEY TRY AND STOP US FROM BREAKING THEIR LAWS?"

A wall can't stop people that can come in thru the front door by applying for legal status as a worker.

And the part where it discusses the ad where illegals should sue us for injuries that occured while they were here illegally. It blows my mind.

[Taxman]

You know what makes me angry about this article?

Only one place in the entire article does it state anything about the fact that this is designed to stop ILLEGAL IMIGRATION. It is designed to stop people from commiting a crime.

"HOW DARE THEY TRY AND STOP US FROM BREAKING THEIR LAWS?"

A wall can't stop people that can come in thru the front door by applying for legal status as a worker.

And the part where it discusses the ad where illegals should sue us for injuries that occured while they were here illegally. It blows my mind.

I think that anyone who reads an article like this understands what the issue is, but it does seem to be the prime tactic of the pro-illegal immigrant movement to obscure the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

[sto110]

yeah a flawed arguement that should be ignored

[xyzzy]

You know what makes me angry about this article?

Only one place in the entire article does it state anything about the fact that this is designed to stop ILLEGAL IMIGRATION. It is designed to stop people from commiting a crime.

"HOW DARE THEY TRY AND STOP US FROM BREAKING THEIR LAWS?"

A wall can't stop people that can come in thru the front door by applying for legal status as a worker.

And the part where it discusses the ad where illegals should sue us for injuries that occured while they were here illegally. It blows my mind.

I once worked at an office where all of the supplies were kept under lock and key. If I wanted a pad of post-its or a bic pen, I had to requisition it and sign a form. Okay, yes, the only point of this was to prevent theft. I still found it stupid, offensive and impractical.

[deadboy]

yeah a flawed arguement that should be ignored

But you can't really ignore it. People will listen to a flawed arguement and not think about it. You, meaning you or me or whomever, has to point out that it's an absurd arguement and that it's only being made to inflame people without making them think. Otherwise a savvy huckster will be able to drag the retards around by their heart strings.

[sto110]

I once worked at an office where all of the supplies were kept under lock and key. If I wanted a pad of post-its or a bic pen, I had to requisition it and sign a form. Okay, yes, the only point of this was to prevent theft. I still found it stupid, offensive and impractical.

why would you be offended by something like that? That is dumb.

and if it prevented theft how would it be impractical?

[sto110]

But you can't really ignore it. People will listen to a flawed arguement and not think about it. You, meaning you or me or whomever, has to point out that it's an absurd arguement and that it's only being made to inflame people without making them think. Otherwise a savvy huckster will be able to drag the retards around by their heart strings.

yeah i guess what i meant is the people who are building or trying to build the wall should ignore that argument as valid.... cause its not.... but yeah i get your point

[McAfee]

I once worked at an office where all of the supplies were kept under lock and key. If I wanted a pad of post-its or a bic pen, I had to requisition it and sign a form. Okay, yes, the only point of this was to prevent theft. I still found it stupid, offensive and impractical.

I am unclear on what you are saying...I think.

There certainly IS a problem with illegal immigration, and there is no reason why "commuters" cannot obtain legal means to cross the border. Dual citizenship, US work permit, etc.

[xyzzy]

why would you be offended by something like that? That is dumb.

and if it prevented theft how would it be impractical?

It's offensive because your employer is basically saying that you can't be trusted.

It's impractical because sometimes you need a fucking pen and you can't get it.