Thread: Fox's trip to West risky

Mexico's leader to stop in California as debate on immigration starts to boil.

MEXICO CITY -- In politics, timing is everything. And pundits say the timing of President Vicente Fox's visit this week to California and the West couldn't be worse.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is deciding whether the California National Guard will participate in President Bush's plan to send 6,000 troops to the border. The Utah Minutemen are planning a protest in Salt Lake City, where Fox will meet with several hundred Mexicans during the first stop of a four-day trip that also takes him to Washington state.

And as Fox is speaking to a joint session of the California Legislature on Thursday, the U.S. Senate will be preparing to vote on an immigration bill that declares English is the national language of the United States and calls for the construction of double- and triple-layered fencing along 370 miles of the border.

The stated purpose of Fox's visit to Sacramento on Thursday and to Los Angeles on Friday is strengthening economic and political ties between California and Mexico.

Fox and members of his cabinet will meet privately in Sacramento with Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles. Later, Fox will attend a reception and dinner hosted by Schwarzenegger, their first meeting since the governor took office.

In Los Angeles, Fox will meet with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and then visit with members of the Mexican community.

But at every stop, Fox is certain to be hounded by questions about immigration -- questions he can't answer without angering either the Bush administration or Mexicans back home.

"It's a terrible time to come because emotions are running high on the illegal immigration issue," said George Grayson, a Mexico scholar at the College of William & Mary. "Immigration is just a lightning rod and he's going to come into the country and he's going to have to say critical things about Bush's speech. That's just going to infuriate the White House."

The fact that Mexico is six weeks away from a presidential election has forced Fox into a rhetorical corner.

He was roundly criticized by Mexicans for saying earlier this week that President Bush's call for the deployment of troops to the U.S.-Mexico border was "logical." So Fox quickly shifted to a tough-talk approach, saying during stops in Tijuana and Mexicali on Thursday that walls and troops "are not the solution." On that point, Fox has an ally in Nunez, who said he is "categorically opposed to deploying the National Guard to the border."

"It sends the wrong message to our neighbors to the south," Nunez said in an interview Friday. "We're not in a state of war with Mexico. If we want to do a better job of patrolling our border, of securing our border, which is our obligation, we should do it (with) appropriate personnel, but not military personnel."

Nunez said his office contacted Fox a month ago about a possible visit to California, renewing an earlier invitation extended by the California legislator when he visited Fox during a goodwill mission to Mexico City last August. With the congressional fight over immigration legislation building to a crescendo, "Fox's visit marks an important milestone in the effort to take the number one foreign policy issue today, which is immigration, and to put in the proper context," Nunez said. "The president's visit is really going to help set the right tone for this immigration debate."

But political analyst Jose Antonio Crespo warned that Fox's decision to visit a sharply divided United States could further polarize Americans on the issue of illegal immigration.

"Maybe he thinks that he can influence the decision of the U.S. senators. But if he thinks that, he has badly miscalculated," Crespo said. "This doesn't help the Mexican cause or the image of President Fox. Any comments he makes can be misunderstood there or here by the Mexican public."

There are rumors that Fox will cancel his U.S. trip, a claim that presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar denies.

"We are going to make the trip the way it has been planned," he said.

Fox's trip could backfire and provoke a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States, said Grayson.

"There is less 'poor Mexico' sentiment. There's less of a view of victimization," he said.

Americans are polling 2-to-1 in favor of an enforcement-heavy immigration bill passed by the House of Representatives in December making unlawful presence in the United States a felony, Grayson said.

That shift in attitude suggests the country may be moving toward tougher treatment of undocumented Mexicans in the future.

"I look for these 6,000 National Guardsmen to only be the first step toward a serious move to militarize the border," he said.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/regstat ... page=2&c=y

But at every stop, Fox is certain to be hounded by questions about immigration -- questions he can't answer without angering either the Bush administration or Mexicans back home.

Hounded? Oh, the poor man

And what's this about "angering" the Bush administration? That's just not possible.

Fox's trip could backfire and provoke a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States, said Grayson.

Sunami size wave I hope.

And as Fox is speaking to a joint session of the California Legislature on Thursday, the U.S. Senate will be preparing to vote on an immigration bill that declares English is the national language of the United States and calls for the construction of double- and triple-layered fencing along 370 miles of the border.

The stated purpose of Fox's visit to Sacramento on Thursday and to Los Angeles on Friday is strengthening economic and political ties between California and Mexico.

U.S. Constitution
Article I Section 8

"The Congress shall have power to. . . regulate commerce with foreign nations. . ."

U.S. Constitution
Article I Section 10

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, . . . enter into any agreement or compact. . . with a foreign power. . ."

U.S. Constitution
Article II Section 2

the President "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;. . ."

President Vincente Fox is suing Arizona for enforcing it's laws as 'unconstitutional' and is also claiming securing the borders is 'unconstitutional' -- neither of which are.

BUT, President Vincente Fox speaking before the California legislature and "strengthening economic and political ties between California and Mexico" IS 'unconstitutional' and EXPRESSLY prohibited

California is still part of the United States and has not ceded to Mexico

"California is still part of the United States and has not ceded to Mexico"

yet.

Originally Posted by obbop

"California is still part of the United States and has not ceded to Mexico"

yet.

even though Mexico is claiming victory

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is deciding whether the California National Guard will participate in President Bush's plan to send 6,000 troops to the border.

I know it is not the main thrust of the post, but Schwarzenegger is only deciding because Bush is so weak. If he was a real President he would federalize the Guard and take that decision away form any state that did not want to comply.

Can't do that AllAmerican

POSSE COMITATUS ACT

AND........he's already fooling with it to get around it. I don't like that tweaking one bit.

Once they play around with it the military can be used against Americans.

Mamie u have my interest when you wrote:

U.S. Constitution
Article I Section 10

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, . . . enter into any agreement or compact. . . with a foreign power. . ."

What in God's Green Acre is he doing here then?

Can't do that AllAmerican

POSSE COMITATUS ACT

Yes, he can. You have to read all of the Posse Comitatus Act. In the final part it gives the President the right to override in cases of national security. In fact, I have been trying to find anything that prevents the President from acting and I can find no law that stops him. That is why you don't see the Senators saying he cannot deploy the Guard if he wants to. There are lots of restrictions, but you have to read the final executive power of the President. He is Commander & Chief and he can order any part of the Armed forces to protect this country. Not only that, the Posse Comitatus Act and the Constitution leaves it to the President to decide the nature of the threat. If he says the country is at risk, then only 2/3rd of congress can stop him. Also, the Posse Comitatus Act refers to local law enforcement, but supporting the US Border patrol is support a federal agency. This is why the ACLU says he is violating the spirit (not the actual law) of this law....that is a way of saying they know in fact he can override this law anytime he wants.

No one in Congress, that I know of, has ever said he does not have the power to deploy troops...not even Reid or Kennedy ...just that they do not like the idea.