Mexico May Take Fence Dispute to U.N.

R

rick_reno

Moderator
"legal investigation"? Wow. Last time Luis and I talked he mentioned he had a new advisor, a fellow with a pointed head and dressed in what appeared to be a polka dotted sheet, who recently held an important job in the White House. I told him "Man, that's Zippy the Pinhead. He just got tossed out of the Oval Office, you should know better than use him for advice."

PARIS -- Mexico's foreign secretary said Monday the country may take a dispute over U.S. plans to build a fence on the Mexican border to the United Nations.

Luis Ernesto Derbez told reporters in Paris, his first stop on a European tour, that a legal investigation was under way to determine whether Mexico has a case.

The Mexican government last week sent a diplomatic note to Washington criticizing the plan for 700 miles of new fencing along the border. President-elect Felipe Calderon also denounced the plan, but said it was a bilateral issue that should not be put before the international community.

Derbez said Monday after meeting with French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy that it was a "shame" U.S. immigration policy had been used for what he claimed was a short-term political gain in the lead-up to midterm elections in the U.S. in November.

He said he discussed the issue with Douste-Blazy, and planned to bring it up in meetings with his Spanish and Italian counterparts during visits to Madrid and Rome. He vowed to work on the case until the "very last day" of President Vicente Fox's term, which ends Dec. 1.

The U.S. Senate approved the border fence bill last month and President Bush has said he will sign it into law _ despite last-minute pleas from the Mexican government for a veto.

"What should be constructed is a bridge in relations between the two countries," Derbez said.
 
ON WHAT GROUNDS can anyone tell a sovereign nation that it has no right to erect a fence intended to keep out those who are attempting to enter the country against its laws?! And during a period when everyone is concerned about the international flow of terrorists?! :mad:


-azurefly
 
So when will Guatemala take Mexico to the Hague court for using troops with machine guns to shoot down migrants on Mexico's southern border?

Frustrated by the hypocracy from down south.
 
Did they really do that?


You know what's really really annoying, to me, is the fact that no one in the public eye, no one in the media, has brought to light the fact that Mexico's laws that govern US when we go THERE are far more draconian than anything we even propose to them when they are here.

I'm talking about the "Limbaugh Laws," as Rush Limbaugh calls them. He proposed a bunch of laws that we should enact, called them the Limbaugh Laws, and they seem really really rough on immigrants.

And then he lets you know that the laws he proposes for us to enact are the ACTUAL LAWS that Mexico HAS RIGHT NOW.

Why doesn't ANYONE in this public policy debate bring up the fact that even as Mexico whines incessantly about how mean we are to illegal immigrants from Mexico, they are far worse to us when we go there?


-azurefly
 
Mexico can "say" anything they want to to a "soverign nation." It doesn't mean we have to listen. I can "say" that Eric Clapton has to put on a free concert in my back yard. It doesn't mean he has to.

(Oh, and Eric, if you're out there? A free concert would be REALLY cool!)
 
Do you guys think that a fence is really going to be built? I bet the funding and the law are like swiss cheese full of holes. Typical Congressional sleight of hand. pass the authorization to build the fence (HEY LOOK WHAT WE DID!). Then the other parts of the law (fine print) or bill that give the director of the agency discretion in bulding the fence or power to divert those funds to a higher priority within the agency. Now you see the rabbit now you dont.
Now the Mexican Goverment is getting in on the act **wink**wink** by raising holy hell about the fence that will never be built to make our elected officials look like heroes for passing this stuff. Afterward the Congressional and Mexican officials go to a three martini lunch slapping each other on the back and joking about what rubes the Americans are. Then we who vote by party label put them back in office not because they are doing a good job but that we are conditioned to vote by party regardless of the outcomes.

better soap opera than Deperate Houswives. Watching the Mexican and American officials screw over the American taxpayers...lol
 
Mexico can "say" anything they want to to a "soverign nation." It doesn't mean we have to listen. I can "say" that Eric Clapton has to put on a free concert in my back yard. It doesn't mean he has to.
Click to expand...


I am wondering if the U.N. is going to let itself look foolish (more so, anyway) by actually wasting time and money and attention on this, if Mexico wants to truly take its meaningless, groundless complaint forward.

One can see on the face of it that Mexico has no legitimate gripe.
Can't wait to see where this one goes.


-azurefly
 
The UN complaint is theatrics for the masses who are what part of illegal dont you understand challenged. Theater for the masses who are against illegals. A dog and pony show by politicians. They make you feel better but its like chinese food because an hour later you are hungry again. I would go so far as to say that it is a partnership between US and Mexican politicians. You give your rant and then we vote down any actions in the security council. Win-win situation for all.
 
Do you guys think that a fence is really going to be built? I bet the funding and the law are like swiss cheese full of holes.
Click to expand...

I bet you're right. Seen this article?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15149231/

Loopholes mean fence may never be built, at least not as advertised

No sooner did Congress authorize construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border last week than lawmakers rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.

GOP leaders have singled out the fence as one of the primary accomplishments of the recently completed session. Many lawmakers plan to highlight their $1.2 billion down payment on its construction as they campaign in the weeks before the midterm elections.

But shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a "virtual fence."

What's more, in a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans, GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure, and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would have the flexibility to use alternatives "when fencing is ineffective or impractical."

The loopholes leave the Bush administration with authority to decide where, when and how long a fence will be built, except for small stretches east of San Diego and in western Arizona. Homeland Security officials have proposed a fence half as long, lawmakers said.

"It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.). The fine-print distinction between what Congress says it will do and what it actually pays for is a time-honored result of the checks and balances between lawmakers who oversee agencies and those who hold their purse strings.

Political calculations
In this case, it also reflects political calculations by GOP strategists that voters do not mind the details, and that key players -- including the administration, local leaders and the Mexican government -- oppose a fence-only approach, analysts said.

President Bush signed the $34.8 billion homeland security budget bill Wednesday in Scottsdale, Ariz., without referring to the 700-mile barrier. Instead, he highlighted the $1.2 billion that Congress provided for an unspecified blend of fencing, vehicle barriers, lighting and technology such as ground-based radar, cameras and sensors.

"That's what the people of this country want," the president said. "They want to know that we're modernizing the border so we can better secure the border."

Bush and Chertoff have said repeatedly that enforcement alone will not work and that they want limited dollars spent elsewhere, such as on a temporary-worker program to ease pressure on the border. At an estimated $3 million to $10 million per mile, the double-layered barrier will cost considerably more than $1.2 billion.

Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who chairs the Senate subcommittee that funds the Department of Homeland Security, said that before the legislation was approved, the department had planned to build 320 miles of fencing, secure 500 miles of hard-to-traverse areas by blocking roads and monitor electronically the rest of the 2,000-mile-long southern frontier.

"I think there'll be fencing where the department feels that it makes sense," Gregg said, estimating that "at least 300 to 400 miles" will be built.

Congress withheld $950 million of the $1.2 billion, pending a breakdown by Chertoff of how he plans to spend the money. It is due in early December, after the midterm elections.

'Virtual fence'
Asked whether Homeland Security would build 700 miles of fence, department spokesman Russ Knocke would not say. Instead, he noted that department leaders announced last month that they will spend $67 million to test a remote-sensing "virtual fence" concept on a 28-mile, high-traffic stretch of border south of Tucson over eight months, and then adjust their plans.

"We plan to build a little and test a little. . . . Stay tuned," Knocke said. "We're optimistic that Congress is going to provide the department with flexibility."

The split between GOP leaders hungry for a sound-bite-friendly accomplishment targeting immigration and others who support a more comprehensive approach also means that the fence bill will be watered down when lawmakers return for a lame-duck session in November, according to congressional aides and lobbyists.

The office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) yesterday released a letter from House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) promising to ensure that Chertoff has discretion over whether to build a fence or choose other options. Homeland Security officials must also consult with U.S., state and local representatives on where structures are placed.

The letter was inserted in the Congressional Record on Friday night because Congress ran out of time to reach a final deal, aides said.

"State and local officials in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas should not be excluded from decisions about how to best protect our borders with their varying topography, population and geography," Hutchison said in a statement added to the record.

Congress also hedged on when a fence would be completed. The law mandating it said Homeland Security officials should gain "operational control" of the border in 18 months. But the law funding it envisions five years. Chertoff has set a goal of two to three years, but only after completion of an immigration overhaul.
 
LOL Rick......status quo for congress. Right now Congress has made TPU Reservists eligible for Tricare to increase thier mobilization readiness. The premium is not what an active duty person pays. We think that is cool that Congress is doing that for these guys. However, in the dark of night they put in legislation to decrease the amount of money that a doctor is reimbursed for treatment under Tricare.

What this means is that you will have less doctors who take Tricare. This will not only effect the Reservists but retirees and service members in remote locations.

The right hand giveth and the left hand taketh. Since I have become involved in writing and reading about legislation that effects servicemembers, veterans and retirees this is the status quo in DC.

Which means that those in Congress know that we as Americans have short attention spans. So they pass a good bill and get headlines. Then later when the hoopla has died down they slide in stuff in the dark of night to either keep the stuff from being funded or giving the agency discretion over the project.

We the blind led by the corrupt keep voting them back in office because they make us feel good. Now they will do some good from time to time but that is only if the public has its dander up as a whole.

Yes its going to hurt but I intend on voting third party this time. Unless the guy regardless of party is doing a good job and deserves the vote. I may be farting in the wind for a long time, if the odor gets bad enough some may vote that way also in the future.
 
I voted 3rd party in the last election for the first time - prior to that I'd voted a straight Republican ticket since Nixon first ran. I don't give Bush credit for much, but he did open my eyes.
 
Does anyone else wonder why none of the all-knowing, and all-seeing, experts here don't run for office? They can immediately point out what is wrong with our policies, and how we should act, but they never seem capable of carrying their commentary beyond the Internet.

Even a one-eyed man, in a country of the blind, could kick some butt. While you know so much, and can make such pithy comments about every one else, let's show some cohones, and put your names in the hat.

I'd vote for someone who actually said, or did, what our resident political pundits do.
 
A. The fence will not be built in meaningful lengths. Spinelessrepublicans made sure it won't happen.

B. Please, Mexico, take US to the UN. Pretty please! The Minutemen's actions brought the issue of criminal immigration to the forefront of public consciousness. Mexico challenging the US' right in the UN to erect a fence on US territory will shine a spotlight on the whole thingy of national sovereignty. . . .something Vinney and George don't want stirred up.
 
Does anyone else wonder why none of the all-knowing, and all-seeing, experts here don't run for office? They can immediately point out what is wrong with our policies, and how we should act, but they never seem capable of carrying their commentary beyond the Internet.
Click to expand...

I send my elected officials correspondence with those same thoughts I write here. If more wrote the elected officials that they didnt appreciate the way things are being done that might get fixed. I also vote in every election also. If more of us voted things might be different too.

Why does one have to run for office to get things done right and to get rid of corruption? One elected official in Washington isnt going to make the difference. The voters make the difference. Right now the majority of folks are going to pull the lever for a Republican or Democrat. So you have a swing vote that is less than the party votes making the difference.

If it wasnt for groups of citizens like the Minuteman we wouldnt be having this discussion because the politicians wouldnt be doing squat.

I submit that the voters and citizens are the ones who can make the difference not the elected officials.
 
I've said this before....

And I'll say it again fellow members.... IF YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY VOTE THIRD PARTY!!!


Epyon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top