FACTS: A great deal of the enmity between the US and Mexico is fueled by Old Guard policymakers who influenced foreign relations on both sides of the boarder during WWII. During WWII, Mexico contracted with Hitler to host Nazi garrisons and to provide logistical support in a planned German invasion of the US from Mexico’s northern boarder. Today in the District de Federal, German is an elitist foreign language, and the former Nazi racial attitudes have taken root in Mexican elite society: Light eyed, light haired children fetch a premium on the Mexican grey market where citizens are classified by their physical appearance.

Many Mexicans who seek employment in the United States send their money back home where its value increases 7 times. The US minimum wage is considerably higher than the average daily wage in Mexico which makes labor intensive industries in the US attractive to Mexican illegals. The savings in labor costs is attractive to US agrarian and mining industries that perceive our immigrations laws as a form of needless bureaucratic harassment. Mexicans seem to accept the kinds of menial jobs that Americans consider indignant.

“Anchor” Babies born to illegals living in the US are granted welfare benefits which drain medicare and social security benefits for legal residents.

The most unifying factor for controlling illegal immigration are the economic discrepancies best summed up by the Center for Immigration Studies:

By issuing Tax Identification Numbers to illegals, the Internal Revenue Service has:

· created an official U.S. tax number that illegal aliens are using as identification, thereby making it easier for them to meld unnoticed into our society;

· endangered homeland security by issuing ITINs to illegal aliens, without adequately ensuring that they are denied to terrorists, criminals on the FBI database, and those under deportation notices;

· exceeded its traditional role as a tax receiver and processor by marketing the ITIN to illegal immigrant communities;

· failed to provide adequate safeguards to prevent illegal aliens from receiving tax benefits to which they are not entitled;

· subverted U.S. immigration laws by withholding information from the INS and SSA about fraudulent activity of illegal aliens;

· provided an ID vehicle that advocates hope will be used to "regularize" illegal aliens; and

· withheld from public review data that is relevant to determining the economic contribution of illegal aliens to U.S. society.

· Review additional CIS data at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1202.html

There is also a moral dichotomy between Mexican and American immigration policies that sorely aggravate the issue: In Mexico, a non-Mexican who legally immigrates to Mexico will never be granted full citizenship and will never enjoy the right to vote. A legal immigrant to Mexico will never be entitled to own land but is required to surrender his or her job to a Mexican citizen upon demand. An illegal immigrant to Mexico is likely to end up dead since disposition records are almost untraceable.

What would happen if the United States adopted Mexico’s Federal Code and reapplied it toward Mexican illegals? And why does Mexico sanction this very pompous double standard?

Mexico claims that the Aztlan territories lost during the American – Mexican War [1846 – 1848] are under foreign occupation; that in fact, no moral instrument ceded the Aztlan territories to US control, except for the Gadsden Purchase in Arizona in 1853. The Aztlan territories comprise the 12 western States minus Washington. Texas was officially ceded to the citizens of Texas by Mexican General Santa Anna when Sam Houston spared Santa Anna’s life following the Alamo massacre in 1836.

Recently, uniformed Mexican Army units crossed into the United States to conduct the safe transport of cartel-produced narcotics across the boarder. Mexico has diminished these minor incursions ‘on their land’ as a gesture to protect commerce in volatile boarder areas. Tactically, Mexico believes that a sufficient number of Mexicans in the US southwest will eventually ‘vote’ the occupied lands back to Mexican sovereignty. Mexican-financed paramilitary insurgent groups such as “Aztlan,” “La M” and freelance sympathizer cells are standing by to enforce the repatriation of Aztlan. Mexico believes that a call to arms will arouse the support ethnic Mexicans living domestically who share the Mexican culture and language; who otherwise have fair-weather political views.

DISCUSSION:

PRO

1. A fence built with the intention of keeping Mexicans out would at least complicate, if not slow down the influx of undocumented workers. By granting illegals a tax ID number, the IRS essentially diminishes the productive effort of hard working Americans and mocks all of us for working in the first place.

2. Human traffickers would tunnel under, fly over, swim around or enter the US illegally from Canada. The act of building a fence would greatly complicate if not stop boarder crossings where, historically, no patrols have ever been noted. A smooth, linear platform with storage capacity would make it easier to fend off would-be invaders.

3. Freelance criminals looking for a quick buck; non-cartel backed Human trafficking cells [coyotes] and terrorists with less amalgamated means would not be able to operate so nonchalantly where the boarder has always been viewed as a ‘big joke:’ The jagged, inaccessible areas are patrolled only by aircraft.

CON

1. When US foreign policy involves itself in every corner of the world, we can not ignore the ramifications that a literal fence will have in the eyes of the world. We are already perceived as a gluttonous nation obsessed with over consumption; where 4% of the world’s population consumes 36% of the world’s resources. I would like to repel that augment with another truth: Our 4% of the world’s population feeds 37% of the entire planet and we have NEVER failed to respond to any nation in need, regardless of their political persuasion. As the world’s last remaining superpower, with China rising on the horizon, our inability to control immigration domestically invalidates our effort to influence similar social policies abroad. A fence would appear more arrogant than isolationist and even more so: Who said that we don’t eventually plan to control of Mexico?

2. If in fact, Mexico truly desires to extricate its cartel influenced economic policies to join the realm of civilized nations, then Mexico would agree to assist the US and Canada in comprehensive boarder patrols around the entire North American continent. This would include coast guard, aerial and satellite interdiction of drug shipments off Mexican shores with Mexican assistance. This highly efficient level of international cooperation would negate the necessity of a fortified fence line. We could give Mexico more direct control of the existing boarder since we would effectively control the entire North American continent.

3. Canada has been a US ally since WWI and maintains the largest undefended International boarder in the world; a 5,000 mile long geopolitical statement about US – Canadian relations. If we could duplicate this type of bilateral cooperation with Mexico, the ideals that inspired NAFTA would become bona fide instead.

CONCLUSION: We can not shoot Mexicans who wish to work, in a nation that once honored Emma Lazarus’ invitation inscribed on the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal. Even though illegals pose a grave economic hardship to law abiding American citizens, shooting boarder crossers who are willing to give their lives for the quality of life that we enjoy, subsisting in our least desirable occupations, contradicts the nature and intention of our nation. Like it or not, the United States is the last bastion of light on the planet, and with that status comes a great deal of benevolent responsibility. There is little to suggest that the US has not upheld that benevolent responsibility better than any nation in western civilization, but until and unless that torch is passed to another – we are that light.

The United States provides a legal path for immigration and citizenship, so that those who agree with our national character may come. Speaking strictly on the issue of erecting a fence to deprive entry into the US by Mexican nationals – I am emphatically against it on every grounds mentioned and omitted for brevity.

There are ‘good’ aspects that, like ‘good’ news, go unmentioned because there is no sensationalism in ‘good’ news. There are many illegals who pay taxes because they feel obligated. The military has created pathways to citizenship through enlistment. Mexico is a Christian nation, albeit not Protestant, but still Christian which many Americans accept much more than the Muslim Shiria Law. Mexico has already been inextricably assimilated into our southwestern culture with State and Legal resources printed in both Spanish and English.

Building a fence is not a viable solution to illegal immigration anymore than shooting those who do cross illegally.

References:

1. Previous editorials written on this subject myself.

2. News groups that deal with this and related topics (I do not moderate any of my newsgroups).

3. Search engines to reference dates and current events.

4. Notes taken at the famous Citadel landmark in Mexico City, during which my Federali guide provided narrative on the subject of racial and boarder issues from a Mexican perspective.

<>5. Internet works were cited end of paragraph.