The Rule Of Law in Chicago & Mexico

In itself I do not find it so troubling that Chicago and Cook County are not systematically enforcing immigration laws, because limited resources should be directed towards apprehending dangerous criminals. And contrary to far right wing narratives, few immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, commit serious crimes. But, I  find it unsettling that given the extent to which immigration laws are violated, we now don't even have the option to choose to systematically enforce them. Given demographic and economic realities, doing so would cause greater damage and dislocation than continued non-enforcement.


While I sympathize with the mostly good and hard working families that have been driven by desperation to cross the border, it is a troubling precedent that a law has in effect been overturned not through the democratic process, but  because the extent of its violation has made it virtually non-enforceable. This is exacerbated by the nature of the Chicago Machine, a patronage system in which individuals and groups believe that their electoral and financial support for a political machine entitles them to economic and political benefits, including immunity from the law. A repeated theme in discussions led by Univision Anchorman Jorge Ramos is that the federal government should enact amnesty, not so much because it serves broad national interests, but because electoral support for Obama has entitled Latinos to it. 


So, in effect the decision to enforce a law has now been determined by its violators and not by the will of the public. Is this not the very phenomena that has rendered Mexico, a country rich in human and natural resources largely ungovernable? The problem is not that Mexico lacks laws and regulations, but the extent to which they are disregarded by the public and the collusion of key segments of the police and politicians, has created widespread impunity for minor and major offenses alike. Is this not the foundation of Mexico's endemic corruption? This holds true for "harmless offenses" like the bootlegging of movies and music, unregulated food vending and littering, as well as more serious violations, like drug trafficking. It has been speculated that the reason why illicit industries are allowed to operate with a considerable degree of impunity is that they now constitute such a significant portion of the economy that their elimination would cause a sharp economic decline in the "lawful sectors" of the economy, like banking and transportation.


I am not for one second comparing undocumented immigration to the drug trade, because whereas the former has offers some economic benefits, the latter is almost entirely destructive. And in no way is an undocumented drywaller or dishwasher comparable to a vicious drug trafficker. But, the underlying principles holds true: the unwillingness or inability of political elites to enforce existing laws and regulations, even ones that we do not entirely agree with, erodes the rule of law. Overtime the social, political and economic repercussions of allowing the rule of law to deteriorate renders cities, states and nations ungovernable, if not unlivable. 


One thing is for certain, we the people cannot expect change to come from our rotten politicians; if we wish to clean up our city and our country, we  must first affirm the rule of law in our daily lives, in our public and private conduct, in the board room and classroom, in the toll booth and voting booth. Whether we are in Chicago or Mexico, we cannot seek to gain rewards and immunity from the law, through the pursuit of political clientelism and expect our politicians to behave any more responsibly. 

Voto y Migración por Luis Rubio

Pictured Above: Exceptional Journalist, Luis Rubio

For those of you who can read in Spanish, I highly recommend that you read the works of Luis Rubio, a very astute and intellectually honest Mexican journalist. In his essay Voto y Migración (Voting and Immigration), he discusses some of the works of Samuel Huntington that pertain to issues of Mexican Immigration to the United States. In contrast to many journalists, he objectively approaches a very emotionally charged topic. He asks his readers to consider the valid points in Huntington's argument and to "put themselves in the shoes of their North American neighbors" and ask themselves how they would respond if Guatemalan Migrants started demanding a host of political rights, while still pointing out the hyperbole in Huntington's argument.

More "Collateral Damage" In the "War On Drugs"

Within 24 hours 40 were killed in Mexico as a direct result of our "War On Drugs," a conflict that has already claimed 42,000 lives. It is clear that neither the Mexican, nor the American state does not have the capacity to crush the cartels. I recognize that narcotics ruin lives and destroy families, but they do not inflict the level of destruction the "War On Drugs" does. The only possible way to end the bloodshed in Mexico is to legalize and heavily tax and regulate the drug trade. It would be far more humane and cost effective to treat drug addicts as a physical and / or mental illness, rather a criminal offense. In other words: Vote Ron Paul.

At Least 40 Killed in Mexico in 24 Hours

By JOSÉ DE CÓRDOBA

MEXICO CITY – Mexican officials Saturday blamed turf wars between some of the country's most brutal drug cartels for a wave of violence across the nation that killed more than 40 people in three attacks, including 21 people massacred in a nightclub in the northern business capital of Monterrey.

At least 20 people are killed when suspected drug gang members open fire at a bar in Monterrey, Mexico's richest city. Video courtesy of Reuters.

The bloodiest attack took place Friday night at the gritty Sabino Gordo bar, when gunmen with assault rifles shot down patrons and workers in Monterrey, a business center that has become a battleground between the Zetas drug gang and the Gulf Cartel from the next-door state of Tamaulipas.

That same day, eleven people were found shot to death in Chalco, just outside of Mexico City. One person survived the attack. On Saturday, the decapitated bodies of 10 people, including three women, turned up in the northern city of Torreon in the trunk of a vehicle.

The carnage was the latest evidence that despite the capture of many top cartel leaders, Mexico's government is making little headway in its battle against escalating drug violence.

During the last four years, drug-related violence has claimed at least 42,000 lives, according to tallies by Mexican newspapers. Most of the dead have been killed by warring drug cartels fighting over routes to the U.S. and increasingly lucrative domestic drug markets.

In a message on his Twitter account, President Felipe Calderón said he "energetically condemned" the attacks in Chalco and Monterrey.

Enlarge Image

Associated Press

Forensic workers load a truck with bodies after gunmen stormed into a nightclub in Monterrey, Mexico on Friday.

Since taking office in December of 2006, Mr. Calderón has sent out thousands of army troops and federal police to reclaim large areas of Mexico effectively controlled by drug gangs. Although Mr. Calderón has been able to capture or kill many leading drug capos, his government's inability to dampen the violence has led many Mexicans to question his policy and created a growing protest movement.

"The violence is the result of the competition by different criminal groups for control of plazas," said Alejandro Poiré, the Federal government's security spokesman in a news conference Saturday. Mr. Poiré said Mexico would continue its strategy of "weakening" criminal organizations by going after cartel leaders, as well as the organizations' logistics, money and weapons.

A top official in Nuevo Leon, whose capital is Monterrey, said the bar where the killings took place was a well known drug distribution point run by the Zetas drug cartel, which controls most of the drug trade in Monterrey. The official said the attack was likely the work of the rival Gulf Cartel. The Zetas were once the enforcers for the Gulf Cartel, but have been fighting their former employers since last year for control of Monterrey and other northern cities.

In Torreon, in the northern state of Coahuila, the Zetas are engaged in another war with the Pacific Cartel, run by Mexico's most powerful drug lord, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, for control of the city. A Torreon police official said that signs found alongside the bodies were signed by the Zetas and that the dead, whose heads were prominently displayed on bridges and traffic crossovers, most likely were low-level members of Mr. Guzman's organization.

"The Zetas are the authors (of this crime)," the official said. "They signed the signs saying: Send more of these. We are here and aren't going anywhere."

The 11 dead found in Chalco, a Mexico City suburb, had been bound and had their faces covered with brown tape, according to the State of Mexico's Attorney General Office. Police sources say the Knights Templar, a drug trafficking organization based in Michoacan state, could be responsible for the massacre.

The Knights Templars are an offshoot of La Familia, a crime organization which controls much of violence-wracked Michoacan state. The Chalco massacre is a worrying development given Chalco's proximity to Mexico City, which so far has largely been able to avoid the violence that has afflicted much of the country.

Over the weekend, Mexico's Federal Police said it had sent some 1,800 of its forces to Michoacan, including several Black Hawk helicopters and armored vehicles. The move came following several days of clashes between federal officials and members of organized crime. At least 11 gun men were killed over two days of clashes, while seven federal police were wounded, according to the Federal Police.

Write to Jose de Cordoba at jose.decordoba@wsj.com

The Irony File

I came across news that some Mexican officials were complaining that we were not providing them
sufficient notice about the deportation of dangerous criminals. And on a more general level they were expressing concern that a recent Supreme Court ruling would pave the way for the return of many dangerous and burdensome Mexican citizens. Considering that the Mexican government has encouraged large scale undocumented immigration and fought efforts to secure the border, this must be placed in our "Irony File."

Supreme Court Ruling On CA's Prison Population Could Impact Mexico


MARK STEVENSON

05/27/11
MEXICO CITY — Mexico's border mayors say they are worried about a possible surge in deportations of criminals to their cities after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling ordered California to reduce its prison population by 33,000.

Mayors of 14 border cities from Tijuana to Matamoros meeting in Mexico City on Friday say they already have problems because U.S. authorities often don't warn them when migrants with criminal records are deported to Mexico.

"There are indications they are going to clean out their prisons," said Manuel Baldenebro, mayor of the city of San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, which sits on the border with California and Arizona. "They (migrant inmates) are a burden, and if they are trying to economize in their jails, they see it as better to send them back."

Baldenebro said the notion of more criminals has caused "fear and insecurity" in cities already plagued by a stubborn wave of drug-related violence that has killed more than 35,000 people nationally since 2006.

While there are no tracking systems to determine what happens to deported criminals, at least one, Martin Estrada Luna, is accused of becoming a leader of a cell of the Zetas drug gang in the border state of Tamaulipas just 18 months after he was deported from the United States. Estrada, who had a long rap sheet of mostly theft and property crimes in Washington state, is now in custody in Mexico City, where he is accused for masterminding the killing of more than 250 people.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, about 10 percent of its 162,694 inmates are from Mexico, the majority undocumented.

The supreme court ordered California on Monday to reduce its prison population to ease overcrowding. California officials say they are looking at a number of possible ways to comply with the ruling, including transferring inmates to local facilities. While there has been no mention of stepping up deportations, there are currently programs in the U.S. to actively identify migrants in the U.S. prison system and deport them upon release.

"Our plan will be submitted to the three-judge panel on June 6 on how the state plans to comply with the population reduction order," said corrections spokeswoman Terry Thornton. "It's still being worked on."

Spokesmen for Gov. Jerry Brown did not immediately return a telephone message.

Under a tough-on-crime immigration crackdown, half of the 393,000 people deported from the United States between October 2009 and September 2010 were convicted of crimes, from minor offenses to murder. While the U.S. doesn't specify their countries, the vast majority are from Mexico.

Mexicans with criminal records in the U.S. can't be detained in Mexico if they have not violated the law in their home country, and most Mexican cities don't have any way to run criminal background checks on deported inmates to see if they have pending charges in Mexico.

When Mexicans without documents finish their prison terms, they're bused to the border and freed.

The United States and Mexico are experimenting with new methods of alerting Mexico about deportations, and U.S. officials say they warn Mexico when former inmates are considered particularly dangerous.

It's not known whether they warned Mexican authorities about Estrada, who was never accused of murder in the U.S.

"What we have seen as mayors is ... that they send back migrants in the early morning hours, and sometimes they don't give us advance notice," said Everardo Villarreal, mayor of Reynosa across from McAllen, Texas.

"We have to have better coordination," added Hector Murguia, mayor of Ciudad Juarez across the border from El Paso, Texas. "It's not about throwing the fleas and cockroaches across the border. Together, we have to kill the fleas and cockroaches."

Associated Press Writer Don Thompson contributed to this report from Sacramento, California.

(This version CORRECTS contributor line and title to spokeswoman instead of spokesman)

Merry Winter Relfection by Jack Hunter

Very interesting piece by Jack Hunter in which he observes the contradiction seen in many western liberals who encourage other cultures to celebrate and express their religious traditions and myths, in the name of multiculturalism, yet are deeply disdainful of their fellow Americans who do so with their Christian Culture and Traditions. He ties this in with the belief of Guillermo Bernal, (an expert on the Mayans from The Mexican Autonomous University) that so many Americans are latching on to (their gross misinterpretation of) Mayan Myths and Traditions because their own myths and traditions have been so thoroughly exhausted. Agree or disagree with his beliefs, Mr. Hunter is always thought provoking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkeNRJe6THs&feature=related

Dear President Calderon

Dear President Calderon,

While I am very fond of the majority of Mexicans, you and much of your political elite are raving hypocrites. You spend much time and energy criticizing the efforts of some American states to control undocumented immigration, while countless Central American migrants are being kidnapping, robbed and raped in your country. And you have the gal to criticize our laws, while yours are far more "anti-immigrant" and "nativist." And we are aware that you preside over a nation that is rich in natural resources, but large segments of your political elite has chosen to outsource the responsibility of providing employment, education and health care to its poorest citizens. While I personally welcome the rational, controlled immigration of hard working Mexicans, we ask that you keep your opinions to yourself when you are visiting the United States. Don't worry, I will also ask that our elected officials stay out of the internal affairs of other nations, at least until we have our own house in order.

Sincerely,

The Informed Citizens of America

Mexico investigating kidnapping of 50 Central American migrants

Mexico's announcement comes a day after it declared that no such incident occurred. Migrants arrested during a roundup allege that gunmen seized the group on Dec. 16 in Chiapas.

By Ken Ellingwood, Los Angeles Times

December 23, 2010

Mexican officials said Wednesday that they are investigating the reported mass kidnapping of 50 Central American migrants, a day after declaring that no such incident took place.

The turnabout could head off possible diplomatic frictions. The National Institute of Migration said Commissioner Salvador Beltran del Rio was in touch with representatives of El Salvador and Honduras, which have drawn attention to the alleged Dec. 16 kidnapping in the southern state of Oaxaca.

Mexico's human rights commission opened its own investigation, saying it had heard from 18 migrants who said they witnessed the abductions.

Kidnappers have long preyed upon migrants traversing Mexico on their way to the United States, prompting charges that Mexico doesn't provide adequate security. The issue has grown more politically sensitive since the August massacre of 72 Central and South American migrants in northern Mexico.

Mexican officials vowed to redouble efforts against armed groups that kidnap migrants to extort money or recruit them for drug-trafficking activities.

Authorities regularly find large groups of migrants in safe houses along smuggling corridors, mainly in southern Mexico. Last month, officials announced the rescue of more than 100 people, mostly from Central America, who were being held in the southern state of Chiapas.

In the Oaxaca case, Central American migrants arrested during a roundup by Mexican authorities reported that 50 others had been seized by gunmen who stopped the train on which they were riding. Central American migrants often make their way north atop freight trains.

A Honduran migrant told radio host Carmen Aristegui that he and others fled after gunmen halted the train. "We heard the shots and had to run," he said.

El Salvador's government said it believes the migrants' account. But Mexican immigration officials said Tuesday afternoon that "no evidence exists of the train having been blocked or held up by any group."

But by Wednesday, the immigration agency said it was interviewing migrants from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. Beltran said Mexican officials switched course after a Oaxaca priest, Alejandro Solalinde, contacted them with 19 witnesses willing to testify.

In San Salvador, Juan Jose Garcia, El Salvador's vice minister for citizens abroad, applauded the shift. "There is no question that we, the government of El Salvador, are onto the truth of the facts," he said in a brief interview.

Fallout from last summer's migrant massacre prompted the resignation of the Mexican immigration agency's commissioner, Cecilia Romero.

A survivor said the migrants were seized by gunmen from the Zetas drug gang. Mexican officials said the migrants were killed for refusing to join the group, but some of the victims' relatives said they had received phone calls demanding money.

ken.ellingwood@latimes.com

Special correspondent Alex Renderos in San Salvador contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-migrants-20101223,0,6750353.story

More Victims of the War on Drugs (part I)

Whenever I watch the evening news in Spanish, I am bombarded with daily incidents of massacres and assassinations in Mexico, stemming from our jointly led war on drugs. In the last four years along nearly 30,000 individuals have been killed, They dead include traffickers, soldiers, policemen and countless civilians. The violence has escalated to the point were drug cartels are assassinating politicians and policemen who we presume are either opposed to them or back their rivals. The war on drugs has greatly exacerbated Mexico's issues of corruption and an anemic civil society.

I personally find drug use abhorrent and socially corrosive, however it has become clear that the cost of our endless war on drugs far outweigh any benefits. This is true in the United States, which has spent billions incarcerating drug users and even more true in Mexico, which is on the verge of becoming a failed state.

I believe the futility and immorality of the drug war are obvious to most politicians, so why do so few support even a modest decriminalization of marijuana? Like most forms of state intervention, the war on drugs imposes net economic and social costs for the nation, but benefit politicians and their corporate allies. Mass incarceration earns billions for those who own prisons. And clearly it has swollen the ranks of bureaucrats, policemen and prison guards. Although this may appear beneficial during a time of high unemployment, a bloated state imposes a heavy burden on the private sector and limits its capacity to provide employment. But, no matter how high the costs of government initiatives may be on the general population, few politicians are willing to rescind programs that expand their power and influence. I am hoping that more Americans and Mexicans will wake up and force their politicians to pursue more humane and effective drug policies or consider the most outspoken critic of the war on drugs, Dr. Ron Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stimulus/2010/aug/14/casualties-mexicos-drug-war/

The Jimmy Carter Prize for the Advacement of Douchebagery

Up until now the Jimmy Carter Prize for the Advancement of Douchebagery has been solely awarded to individuals. But, recent events compel the Chicago Freedom Forum to convey this award to a group: President Obama and the American politicians who applauded the President of Mexico's address to the congress. During this address Mr. Calderon openly attacked SB1070, Arizona's new immigration law. Although I ultimately do not support this law, the principles of national sovereignty and self respect makes his address totally inappropriate. Before the speech President Obama should have privately stated to Mr. Calderon:

"The domestic policies of the United States must be debated and decided upon by officials who were elected by the American people, not by foreign leaders...furthermore, as flawed as Arizona's policies may be, it's hypocritical of you to criticize them, because Mexico's own immigration policies are much harsher..."

Another affront to American sovereignty occurred when Carlos Navarrete Ruiz, the President of the Mexican Senate who accompanied President Calderon publicly called on the Hispanic community of the United States to secure an electoral triumph for the Democratic Party in the coming elections.

The Chicago Freedom Forum has not awarded President Calderon the Jimmy Carter Prize, because he simply responded to the political and cultural signals that our "leadership" sent him. If they had conveyed their commitment to sovereignty and self respect, Mr. Calderon would not have made such a speech. And I neither bear Mr. Calderon nor his cohorts a grudge, because they are doing what their people elected them to do: represent their national interests. I wish I could say the same for President Obama and our elected officials.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/may/20/obama-calderon-decry-arizona-immigration-law/

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/681952.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005551-503544.html

E.Coli Outbreak Traced to Hillary Clinton

The CDC traced a recent E.Coli to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The head of the CDC research team, Dr. Greenberg stated:

"We believe that all of the bullshit that Secretary of State Clinton spouted that 90% of illicit guns in Mexico originated from the United States contaminated the Potomac River, infecting several thousand residents of Washington, DC."

When questioned about how the bullshit of one person could lease to such widespread contamination, Dr. Greenberg responded:

"Our research team believed that Secretary of State Clinton's bullshit was especially noxious because it will almost certainly be used as a pretext by the Obama Administration to curtail the 2nd amendment rights of American Citizens."

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.

While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.

By William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott
FOXNews.com

EXCLUSIVE: You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

A Look at the Numbers

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:

-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.

-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.

-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.

-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.

'These Don't Come From El Paso'

Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.

"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."

Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."

Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.

The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

Boatloads of Weapons

So why would the Mexican drug cartels, which last year grossed between $17 billion and $38 billion, bother buying single-shot rifles, and force thousands of unknown "straw" buyers in the U.S. through a government background check, when they can buy boatloads of fully automatic M-16s and assault rifles from China, Israel or South Africa?

Alberto Islas, a security consultant who advises the Mexican government, says the drug cartels are using the Guatemalan border to move black market weapons. Some are left over from the Central American wars the United States helped fight; others, like the grenades and launchers, are South Korean, Israeli and Spanish. Some were legally supplied to the Mexican government; others were sold by corrupt military officers or officials.

The exaggeration of United States "responsibility" for the lawlessness in Mexico extends even beyond the "90-percent" falsehood -- and some Second Amendment activists believe it's designed to promote more restrictive gun-control laws in the U.S.

In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.

Chris Cox, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, blames the media and anti-gun politicians in the U.S. for misrepresenting where Mexican weapons come from.

"Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this," Cox said. "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."

"The predominant source of guns in Mexico is Central and South America. You also have Russian, Chinese and Israeli guns. It's estimated that over 100,000 soldiers deserted the army to work for the drug cartels, and that ignores all the police. How many of them took their weapons with them?"

But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, called the "90 percent" issue a red herring and said that it should not detract from the effort to stop gun trafficking into Mexico.

"Let's do what we can with what we know," he said. "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open."

Jorge G. Castañeda: a Window Into Mexico (part III)

Not even Mr. Castañeda can stand the

stench of his own hypocrisy.

As documented in Part I & II of this essay, Jorge G. Castañeda and key members of the Mexican government have harshly criticized the United States for its immigration policies and aggressively lobbied for amnesty and liberalization. Two important questions that few people have posed during the immigration debate are: what are Mexico's own immigration policies and how does Mexico treat its own large immigration population? After reading the constitution and the General Law of Population of Mexico, I concluded that in contrast to our own immigration policies, Mexico's policies are rational and firmly based on the principles of sovereignty and the promotion of national interests. In the following paragraphs I will highlight the dramatic contrast that seen between American and Mexican immigration law, which reveal the sheer hypocrisy of the demands that the Mexican government has placed on the United States.

In sharp contrast to the United States, Mexican law and political sentiments clearly prohibits non-citizens from discussing, let alone protesting Mexican law while on Mexican soil. Specifically, Article 33 of the constitution state"Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." In other words, if thousands of documented, let alone undocumented immigrants were to participate in protests, they would be promptly deported. And of course, Mexico would not tolerate American officials interfering in the application of Mexican laws.

The implications of Mr. Castañeda's demands are that interests and opinions of immigrants and foreign nations should be factored into American policies. So, it comes as a surprise that the Mexican constitution unequivocally presents immigration as a phenomena that must be carefully planned and tightly controlled for the benefit of the nation.

Article 32 of the General Law of Population states that the government must conduct demographic studies to determine the volume and composition of immigration that is most beneficial for the economic and social welfare of the Mexico.

Article 34 emphasizes that the government must factor in the professional background and intended place of residence to ensure that immigrants are economically useful for the nation and will not be an economic burden on the state. It also explicitly states that immigrants must have sufficient economic resources to ensure their own economic sustenance and that of the people that of their dependents; in other words, no welfare and social services for non-Mexican citizens.
And most interestingly, Article 37 states that foreigners may be barred from entering the country if their presence upsets the "the equilibrium of the national demographics" and are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," "when they have broken Mexican laws" and when "they are found to not be physically or mentally healthy."

These articles make it quite hypocritical for Mexican officials to so shrilly protest when Americans push for restrictive immigration policies that they believe represent their economic interests, such as Proposition 187 that barred undocumented immigrants from receiving welfare benefits in the state of California. And also it casts a bad light on political commentators like Jorge Ramos who has labelled all Americans who express concerns about massive demographic changes as being "racist and anti-immigrant." Clearly Mexico believes it demographic reality is something that must be controlled by and serve the interest of the nation, yet it demands that the United States accept changes that do not reflect the laws or desires of the nation.

Mr. Castañeda and like minded individuals have harshly criticized the United State's treatment of undocumented immigrants. So, perhaps they have not read Article 123 that states that illegally entering Mexico is a criminal offense that can be punished by up to two years in jail and a $5,000 peso fine and Article 33 of the constitution that grants the government the power to expel any foreigner without due process of the law.

Article 118 mandates a prison term of up to 10 years and a fine of up to $5,000 pesos for all individuals who have been expelled who attempt to re-enter the country without legal permission.

Article 116 clearly states that those who are caught using false documents run the risk of being fined and imprisoned.

Article 119 & 120 states that those who violate the terms of their visa (such as working without a permit) can be fined and imprisoned for up to 6 years.

Immigration activists have protested and initiated law suits against localities that seek to enforce immigration law, so it comes as a surprise that the Article 73 explicitly states that local and municipal police must fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

In regards to equal employment opportunities, the Mexican Constitution bars immigrants from many professions, even if they have obtained citizenship, such as: serving as military officers, airline crews and federal lawmakers, cabinet secretaries,and even clergy members (Article 130).
So, how does Mexico fair in its actual treatment of immigrants? Jose Luis Soberanes, the President of the Mexico’s Center for the National Commission of Human Rights (CNDH) aptly sums it up in the following sentence:

"We demand that they (Americans) treat us (Mexicans) well, and we are incapable of treating Central Americans well."

According to Mr. Soberanes, numerous complaints have been filed against military personnel and Mexican Immigration Authorities (INM) for stealing money, physically and sexually abusing Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans.

So, the question remains - how should we respond to the sheer hypocrisy of Mexican officials who demand that the United States pursue policies that are in sharp contrast to their own? A good starting point would be for the Congress to re-boot the entire immigration debate by adopting each and every one of Mexico's strict immigration laws. This would hold up a mirror to Mexico and completely disarm their criticism of the American immigration policy. The starting point of any debate with Mexico and the American left would be based on the following givens:

Until Mexico liberalizes its own laws and improves the treatment of its large population of undocumented immigrants, there shall be no discussions.

The United States, like Mexico has the right to determine and enforce its laws for the benefit of its own people. No country is obligated to provide jobs, health care or education to non-citizens.

The limited cases of enforcement do not make the United States "anti-immigrant," rather the millions of cases in which the United States does not enforce its laws and provides unparalleled opportunities to immigrants is a testament to the generosity and pro-immigrant spirit of America.

I close this discussion with the following thoughts: my ire does not lie with the Mexican government and especially not with the Mexican people, who like all healthy beings, unabashedly pursue their self interest and sovereignty, in contrast to large segments of the American elite who are indifferent or even hostile to the will and welfare of the American people. So, if anything, we have a lot to learn from Mexico.

http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/1917_Constitution_of_Mexico.html#TitleIChapterIII
http://www.migracioninternacional.com/docum/indice.html?mundo=leypob.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608703/posts

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/060815a.aspx

http://vivirlatino.com/2007/07/23/rights-group-demands-mexico-look-into-abuse-against-central-american-immigrants.php

Jorge G Castañeda: A Window Into Mexico (part II)

After reading Jorge G. Castañeda's article in the Atlantic Monthly, I did a little research on him and learned of his long and questionable involvement in internal American politics. This highlights a truly revolutionary role reversal between the United States and Mexico: historically the United States has shamelessly interfered in Mexico's internal affairs, but in recent years Mexican politicians have shown a disregard for American sovereignty by interfering in internal American affairs. Mr. Castañeda presided over this shift when he demanded that the United States undertake "integral immigration reform" or what he colorfully labeled as the "whole enchillada or nothing," which includes a complete amnesty, a massive guest worker program (in spite of our high unemployment), a removal of the quota on Mexican immigration and the suppression of ranchers that guard their property. He went on to declare that undocumented immigrants should "organize themselves in order to defend themselves against the federal, state and local authorities that are against them..." Before we continue, I must clarify two essential points:

One - although I see the necessity of achieving a humane, rational and comprehensive immigration reform, it constitutes an internal affair of the United States that must be decided by the American people, not by foreign officials nor even by the immigrants themselves.

Two - I am not criticizing Mexico; if anything I admire the national zeal that these Mexican officials are demonstrating in promoting their economic and social interests. Rather my disgust and criticism is directed towards the large segments of America's political, economic and academic elite, whom in contrast to the bulk of the American people, totally lack a sense of national sovereignty and pride.

In 1995 President Zedillo actively campaigned, within the United States, against proposition 187, a referendum that would have cut off welfare benefits to California's undocumented immigrants. While there was much to criticize about this proposition, it was completely unacceptable to allow a foreign leader to involve himself in the internal political affairs of the voters of California. This is particularly noteworthy, because in Mexico is is a criminal offense for non-citizens to even discuss Mexico's internal politics. And most definitely the Mexican government does not permit documented or undocumented immigrants to participate in politics and marches.

In 2002 & 2003 Castañeda spoke in front of a LULAC convention, which is an organization of Latin Americans within the United States. During his speech he harshly criticized America's immigration policies and urged convention goes to lobby US legislators to push for an immigration accord. Mexican nationalists would rightfully howl with indignation if an American politician, standing on Mexican soil gave political instructions to Mexican voters.

While speaking in Los Angeles, Castañeda on Monday stated "We won't rest until we achieve the regularization of our countrymen" and "The Mexican agenda will focus its strategy to reach these goals through reinforced dialogue with the U.S. Congress and its leaders, governors, media and business community." Regardless of the merits of amnesty, it is beyond the pale of reason to allow a foreign government to aggressively seek to influence internal American affairs against the will of the majority of the American electorate.

Former President Fox reiterated this when he stated: "In the last few months we have managed to achieve an improvement in the situation of many Mexicans in that country, regardless of their migratory status, through schemes that have permitted them access to health and education systems, identity documents, as well as the full respect for their labor and human rights." Although I strongly affirm the importance of human treatment of all immigrants regardless of their status, it is the sole right of the American people and not foreign leaders to determine our health and welfare policies. I am equally critical of the the American government when it seeks to interfere with the policies of other governments, even if I find them distasteful.

Beyond individual politicians, Mexican consulates have been at the forward of interfering in America's internal affairs. In California members of the state legislature and the consulate
discussed issues of granting driver's licenses and in-state-tuition to undocumented immigrants. The consulate's defense of the interests of Mexican citizens is perfectly understandable, but having elected American politicians collaborate with foreign officials is troubling. One of the California legislative bests sums up this relationship when he stated "We want to discuss all the themes that affect the Mexicans living here and at the same time recognize the point of view that Mexico has." The only point of view that elected American officials should consider is that of the American citizens that elected them. In addition, Teodoro Maus, the consul general in Atlanta (from 1989 - 2001) vociferously opposed the declaration of English as the official language of Georgia and demanded an apology from a local radio talk show host who suggested that machine gun posts be placed at the border. While I am undecided on the merit of the 1st proposition and disgusted by the talk show host, the head of the Mexican consulate greatly overstepped his boundaries.

We end this post with the troubling questions: what does is say about the spirit and vision of our political, economic and academic elite when so many of their members allow or even abet foreign officials in the violation of our sovereignty and national interests? Forging a path towards humane and sustainable immigration policy is essential for the economic and social welfare of the United States, but it is a path that must be solely determined by the people of the United States. On a deeper level, the political interference that I have amply documented shows that the rapid economic and demographic convergence of Mexico and the United States is being accompanied by a gradual political convergence. Ironically, the Mexican nationalists that aggressively interfere in America's domestic affairs are setting the stage for political convergence that will most erode their own cherished sovereignty.
For all their differences, Mexican and American elites share one thing in common: an utter disdain for the will and welfare of their own people.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1302/article_1123.shtml

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/14/223039.shtml

Jorge G. Castañeda: A Window Into Mexico (part I)

In 1995 Mexico's Minister of the Exterior, Jorge G. Castañeda wrote a piece in the Atlantic Monthly entitled "Ferocious Differences" in which he offered some profound insights into the socio-economic reality of Mexico. Among other things he discusses the shocking level of economic inequality and social segregation in Mexico:

"Mexico is a society terribly riven by class, race, gender, age, region, and future, in which a middle- and upper-class minority segregates and discriminates against the vast majority of the population. It is one of the most unequal societies around, though not one of the poorest."

"There is, of course, a middle class in Mexico, but it constitutes a minority of the population: somewhere between a quarter and a third. The majority -- poor, urban, brown, and often without access to the main attributes of modern life in the United States and other industrialized countries (public education, decent health care and housing, formal employment, social security, the right to vote and serve in government, jury duty, and so forth) -- mingles with itself. It lives, works, sleeps, and worships apart from a small group of the very wealthy and a larger but still restricted middle class."

And most interestingly he presents s view of Mexican immigration that is remarkably similar to that of right wing Americans, namely that uncontrolled immigration serves as a critical safety valve that allows Mexico to avoid economic and social collapse. In other words, the Mexican Government maintains stability by outsourcing the responsibility of providing jobs, education and health care to millions of its poorest citizens to the United States. In addition, the remittance of these hard working immigrants provides billions of dollars for the Mexican economy.

"Any attempt to clamp down on immigration from the south -- by sealing the border militarily, by forcing Mexico to deter its citizens from emigrating, or through some federal version of California's Proposition 187 -- will make social peace in the barrios and pueblos of Mexico untenable. The United States has traditionally made the right choice between what it considers two connected evils: Mexican instability and Mexican immigration. It fears both but clearly prefers the latter, knowing that the former would only worsen matters."

Inadvertently he also touched upon an area of tremendous contention for the hand full of Americans who follow Mexican government policies: the utter disregard for the sovereignty and sentiments of the American people. He treats large scale, unrestricted immigration from Mexico as an inevitable phenomena that the American public has no right to contest or control:

"Some Americans -- undoubtedly more than before -- dislike immigration, but there is very little they can do about it, and the consequences of trying to stop immigration would also certainly be more pernicious than any conceivable advantage."

Unfortunately Mr. Castañeda fails to grasp the most important implications of his strategy of using immigration as a social and economic safety valve for Mexico:

First, this strategy allows the Mexican government to avoid the essential task of reforming its political and economic system. The prospect of a growing population of unemployed, uneducated citizens that do not have the option of seeking their fortunes in the United States would provide a large incentive for Mexico's elite to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth.

Second, he fails to ask if this strategy is a viable long term solution, because it's contingent on the US government maintaining open borders against the will of American voters. Many Americans look at Mexico's economic situation and are quite skeptical about the claims of open border advocates that increasing the supply of cheap labor is a viable strategy for sustained economic development.

And lastly Mr. Castañeda fails to see the irony that the Mexican government has encouraged Mexican immigrants to demand political and economic rights and reform within the United States, yet the same government has responded with great hostile when its own citizens seek those sames rights within Mexico.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97feb/mexico/castaned.htm

¿Por que las tortillas de maiz cuestan tanto?

Pictured Above: Mexicans protesting the rising price of tortillas.

Translated from Spanish: Why do the corn tortillas cost so much?

That's what people in Mexico will be asking next year when the Obama Administrations mandate to increase the use of ethanol diverts more corn away from feeding people. I am not much of a chef, but that sure sounds like a recipe for hunger. Now that's a subsidy...I mean change that the agro-corporations can believe in!

Government Fuel Goals Will Require Higher Ethanol Blends, Study Concludes

By Kate Galbraith

A new report on biofuels is urging that better infrastructure and more aggressive policies necessary if the nation is to meet its mandates for ethanol and other alternative fuels.

The report, by the National Commission on Energy Policy, argues that the nation needs to increase the amount of ethanol blended into gasoline, as well as make it easier for biofuels plants and pipelines to get government permits and make it easier to transport ethanol.

The “renewable fuels standard” calls for Americans to use 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, up from the current 9 billion today.

The report cited a need for more “flex-fuel” vehicles that can fill up with 85 percent ethanol, as well as more gasoline stations offering the fuel. Currently an estimated 1 percent of gas stations around the country offer flex fuel, according to the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition.

In addition, a higher blend of ethanol will be needed for regular cars, the report said. Currently many stations around the country provide a 10 percent ethanol blend, but the industry is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to lift that “blend wall” by a few percentage points.

Moving ethanol long distances is also a challenge. Currently most ethanol travels by rail, truck or barge — and there is only one, small ethanol pipeline in the country (ethanol’s ability to attract water makes it hard to channel through pipelines).

Improvements such as better off-loading facilities at blending terminals along train lines, and remedying the country’s shortage of truck drivers, could help the industry.

Most members of the task force that put together the biofuels report are from the oil and pipeline industries, and the study avoids the controversial question of whether or not corn ethanol — the main source of alternative fuels today in this country — is a desirable fuel. Many environmentalists have criticized corn ethanol for its environmental costs, although the government timeline calls for corn ethanol production to plateau as cellulosic ethanol production increases.

Although the report emphasizes that it is important for industry to know that the government is serious about enforcing the biofuels targets, the cellulosic mandate already looks to be falling short.

Next year, the country is supposed to produce 100 million gallons of advanced biofuel — that is, fuel derived mainly cellulosic ethanol, made from corn cobs, switchgrass or other non-corn items. Currently — as my colleague Clifford Krauss has written — there are no commercial-scale cellulosic plants, though a few are under construction.

Meanwhile, as my colleague’s article also mentions, the corn ethanol industry — hit by volatile corn and gasoline prices — is in bad shape too.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/government-fuel-goals-beg-for-higher-ethanol-blends-study-concludes/

Fantastic Website

After my last posting I have to emphasize the in spite of my strong reservations about our current immigration policies, I have a great deal of respect for Mexican culture. Most Americans have a very narrow understanding of this culture. I strongly encourage you to check out this website, it has lots of great information on Mexican art, music, architecture, culture and culinary traditions.

http://www.uv.mx/popularte/ingles/menu_principal.htm