Thread: Dick Morris' thinks

In Mexico - The U.S. Immigration Debate
Dick Morris
Wednesday, April 5, 2006



In its debate over how to change the U.S. immigration system, Washington neglected the impact in Mexico - which faces a crossroads election this summer.

And Mexico's choice could not be more important to the United States.

On July 2, the Mexican people will decide whether to elect ultra-leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) as their next president.

Rumors have abounded for months that Lopez Obrador's campaign is getting major funding from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. And last month Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz)., a moderate Republican, told several Mexican legislators that he had intelligence reports detailing revealing support from Hugo Chavez to AMLO's Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD).

Chavez is a firm ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro. Lopez Obrador could be the final piece in their grand plan to bring the United States to its knees before the newly resurgent Latin left. Between them, Venezuela and Mexico export about 4 million barrels of oil each day to the United States, more than one-third of our oil imports. With both countries in the hands of leftist leaders, the opportunity to hold the U.S. hostage will be extraordinary.

Story Continues Below


Think we have security problems now, with Vicente Fox leading Mexico? Just wait until we have a 2,000-mile border with a chum of Chavez and Castro.

Lopez Obrador is not inevitable. Recent polls show the candidate of Fox's National Action Party (PAN), Felipe Calderon, closing in. But much will hinge on the resolution of the immigration debate now roiling Congress.

Lopez Obrador has attacked U.S. attempts to restrict Mexican immigration and will benefit tremendously if Congress alienates the Mexican electorate. A recent survey by John Zogby found that two-thirds of Mexicans feel Americans are racist and biased against them. A harsh shift in U.S. immigration policies could fuel a leftist victory in Mexico.

Mexicans are deeply offended by the idea of a wall designed to keep them out. Building a wall on the boarder without also starting a guest-worker program will play badly in Mexico. A wall with a guest-worker program might go down better, particularly if the legislation didn't include punitive provisions making illegal immigration a felony.

I have worked as a consultant for Fox and PAN, so I appreciate the delicacy of the political situation in Mexico. In Fox's election in 2000 ended the 71-year authoritarian rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) heavily dominated by old corrupt leaders linked to the drug traffic, Now PAN has nominated Calderon, once Fox's energy minister, to run for president.





The PRI's candidate this year, Roberto Madrazo, is widely expected to finish third - the party is still identified in the popular mind with the corruption of the past.

Most observers feel the race will be between Lopez Obrador and Calderon. While the PAN candidate would be no puppet of the United States, he is fully committed to free market economics and wants a close relationship with our country. Lopez Obrador would be part of the Latin America's new, anti-U.S. left in.

That Latin Left includes Venezuela's President Evo Morales, who won as an overtly pro-cocoa-cultivation candidate. And in Peru, Ollanta Humala, a Chavez ally, is likely to finish first in this month's election and probably will win the runoff.

But Mexico, with its vast oil resources and its long border and free-trade agreement with the United States, would be the crown jewel for America's enemies. We have only to hope that Congress won't pass legislation that alienates the Mexican electorate and delivers the country into AMLO's hands.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 1711.shtml


I am tired of people buckling under foreign countries pressure, using oil or other things, to make the USA change it's immigration policies...or any other types of blackmail.....

If Senators listen to Morris, they also will buckle!

Lopez Obrador has attacked U.S. attempts to restrict Mexican immigration and will benefit tremendously if Congress alienates the Mexican electorate

Nice try Dick, but it isn't gonna work. Let Mexico elect a leftist President. Then our government will have to secure our southern border.

Mexicans are deeply offended by the idea of a wall designed to keep them out.

WHO CARES? All the better reason to build the damn thing.

Mexicans are deeply offended by the idea of a wall designed to keep them out

Americans are "deeply offended" by the federal government's attempts to keep them in.

It appears the citizens of Mexico and the citizens of the United States should band together and demand better governments for themselves.

Mexico needs to create employment laws for 'their citizens' that include a minumum wage

A very good reason for a fence and a very closed and controlled border.

It is also a very good reason for getting those out already here rather than giving them voting rights.

I remember when the previous President of Mexico stood on the TExas Capitol steps and addressed 'his people in America' (legals) to vote in the upcoming American election and when they voted 'vote with Mexico in mind'.

They vote in a leftist nut … we put up a fence (as we should) and the 20 million illegals here apply for political asylum… The American worker just can’t seem to win …

The more we increase our population the more we have to rely on foreign sources for essential commodities such as energy, and we are even at the point now that we need water from Canada, and we may even need to import food within twenty years or so (if we can find it and afford it). So, the greater the immigration, the greater our vulnerability to foreign influcence and manipulation.

Morris points out that we could be brought to our knees by Mexico and others withholding oil. But we are already being brought to our knees by massive illegal immigration. Without their oil we would continue to exist as a nation somehow, but with massive illegal immigration we won't. So, which is worse? -- no Mexican oil imports or no nation? Without remittances they would not only be under more pressure to sell us oil (thus not necessarily making us more vulnerable), but to fix their internal problems and that would benefit both countries in the long run. Sometimes a tough-love approach is necessary to make people address their problems. Morris actually suggests continuing an unhealthy co-dependent relationship approach which is not good for either country.

I'm afraid that some senators could be swayed by what is apparently the latest OBL talking point. But, what got us into this mess is our politicians taking the easy way out for short-term political expediency rather than focusing on long-term consequences. We do need leaders and representatives with more integrity and long-term vision.

BlueHills .... very well said