Category: Uncategorized

By Jose Angel Gutierrez

Originally published en espanol in La Estrella newspaper of Fort Worth, reprinted by permission of author.

No this is not a match between two boxers or wrestlers; it is a debate at the University of Texas-Arlington campus on April 28, 2006 at 1pm at the Student Center, Rosebud Theatre. It is free and open to all the public.

I am debating Jared Taylor, a racist in a suit. Look at his writings for the past 14 years under http://www.amren.com He believes that the first white persons that came to North America were “pioneers” and “nation builders,” not illegal aliens.
I say the first illegal aliens in the US were the pilgrims, his forefathers. I believe that the first illegal aliens in Texas were Davy Crockett, Sam Houston, Jim Bowie, and thousands of other criminals. He believes that they were freedom fighters and heroes.

Taylor also has racist views about certain people. White people are good and intelligent by nature. Blacks and browns (Latinos) are criminal by nature. Mexicans and other Latinos are invading the US and destroying the white way of life, he writes, says, and believes.

Come hear him. To him and his supporters, the US has been a white country, still is a white country, and should remain a white country. I believe this is a nation of immigrants and we should all accommodate each other and live peacefully as human beings not racial groups.

Mexico lost these lands we now call Texas and the Southwest in wars of aggression fought by the US in the early to mid-1800s. Political control over these lands transferred over to the US and our problems began. Overnight we were made illegal and unwanted in our own homelands. That is still the case today.

The Taylor’s of this country believe we should not come into the US unless we become like them. In the case of African Americans who were brought here in chains and into slavery, the Taylor’s of this country believe they are inferior and cannot become like them. In our case the Taylor’s believe we are not only different in our culture but deficient because we are not white.

I realize you probably do not believe such people exist today but they do and I am having this debate in public to expose this racist in a suit on April 28th at 1pm. If you cannot come, go read his material. Taylor and others are daily on the air on radio and television talking bad about Mexicans, immigrants and me in particular. I think we need to answer them back in public.

We’re scrolling through the MEXUS Compact on Competitiveness, when zingo, up comes the subhead “Energy Security”. Oh boy, here we go again. Don’t forget to check out the “leadership” list at the end:

With the fourth largest crude oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere, Mexico nonetheless imported $2.4 billion of gasoline and $1.5 billion of natural gas in 2003. This staggering reality, the result of Constitutional requirements that restrict foreign investment in the hydrocarbons sector, was exacerbated in 2004 by higher import volumes and
international prices.
As a result, Mexico’s energy sector, central to the country’s economy and a legitimate source of national pride, faces the challenge within the framework of its Constitution of drawing substantial foreign investment flows to modernize, expand, and improve production.

Increased production would help Mexico meet its growing domestic demand for energy, while allowing increased exports to augment the inflow of revenues
and to realize corresponding benefits. Without making conditions more attractive for private investors in the near term, PEMEX, Mexico’s national oil company will be unable to sustain its role as the primary underwriter of Mexico’s annual budgetary needs over
time.

Additionally, unless Mexico finds cost-effective means to raise production, overall security and competitiveness within North America will be impacted.

From the MEXUS “Compact on Competitiveness”

The business community respects and deeply appreciates the political sensitivities toward private investment in the Mexican state-owned energy sector, even as we believe that Mexico would greatly benefit by liberalizing its energy sector.

By partnering with US and Canadian energy companies, Mexico can position itself to meet domestic demand as well as increase its reserves and revenues while contributing to growth in energy dependent sectors.

US and Canadian energy companies are interested in becoming actively engaged in Mexico’s energy market and are willing to invest much needed financial, management, and technological resources to increase energy availability and efficiency in North America.

Specifically, recent claims to vast deepwater oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico could be a boost to the country’s total energy output and national income. Tapping into these new sources, however, will require Mexican Congressional
approval and increased cooperation with foreign companies that have the technical and financial strength required to undergo such complicated explorations. Without such cooperation, Mexico will be unable to reap the full benefits of deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

As well, US and Canadian companies tend to promote a culture of philanthropy including support for schools, hospitals, and the arts that would bring benefits to Mexico beyond sector-specific investments. The first step would be to create an appropriate investment framework to allow for such foreign investment on market terms.

Appendix I
US-Council, MEXUS Leadership Team

ChevronTexaco Corporation
Eastman Kodak Company
First Data Corporation
Ford Motor Company
Kissinger McLarty Associates
Manatt Jones Global Strategies
Merck & Company
MetLife
Miller & Chevalier Chartered
Nextel International/NII Holdings
The Procter & Gamble Company

The views expressed in this report are the collective opinions of individuals representing companies
associated with the US-Mexico Business Committee and/or the Council of the Americas. They are not
necessarily the views of the companies themselves.

Greetings all. The very latest monthly information on the criminal enforcement of immigration cases shows that January prosecutions were almost 18% higher than they were in December and over 100% higher than they were five years ago. TRAC’s January Monthly Update Bulletin also provides specific data on the most frequently used laws, busiest districts
and most active judges. To see this timely report go to http://trac.syr.edu/immigration and click on “Reports and Bulletins.”

Also note the two reports on Protecting the Borders. Both provide insights about President Bush’s immigration plan. One report, for example,
shows that in the last ten years Border Patrol agents have more than doubled but “apprehensions” of aliens declined by about ten percent. A second report shows that Border Patrol staff increased at a faster rate
under President Clinton than in the Bush years. Both reports have sector-by-sector data.

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University

Reviewing the Mar del Pata Plan of Action forged at the Fourth Summit of the Americas in Argentina last year (Nov. 2005) we find the two footnotes most instructive. In both cases, the USA delegation refuses to honor the precedence of international rights for workers and migrant workers.
For example, here is paragraph 18 as agreed to by the Summit of the Americas, emphasis added:

18. To adopt measures to encourage the full and effective exercise of the rights of all workers, including migrant workers, as well as application of core labor standards, such as those contained in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its follow-up, adopted in 1998. Explore ways for the ILO to provide technical advisory services to member states to help them accomplish that objective.

In the following footnote to paragraph 18, the USA prefers the authority of state law to “core labor standards” of the ILO. Instead of “full and effective exercise” of international rights, the USA prefers to “promote respect”:

Paragraph 18: The United States reserves on this paragraph and prefers instead the following text: “Protect and promote the rights of all workers, including migrant workers in accordance with the legal framework of each country, and applicable international law, and promote respect for the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its follow-up. Explore ways for the ILO to provide technical advisory services to Member States to help them accomplish that objective.”

And here is the summit’s paragraph on migrant workers with emphasis added:

To strengthen constructive dialogue on international migration, with a view to full recognition of human rights of migrant workers, reduce their vulnerable conditions at work, as well as advocate effective compliance of the principle of equality and non-discrimination at work in accordance with international instruments in this area and, thereby, ensure that migration is an orderly process that benefits all parties and boosts productivity at the global level.

Compare this to the second and last footnote attached to the summit plan by the USA:

Paragraph 20: The United States notes that this language was discussed in connection with the declaration and consensus was achieved, including the United States, on the basis of the following language: “increase Inter-American cooperation and dialogue to reduce and discourage undocumented migration as well as to promote migration processes in accordance with the legal system of each state and applicable international human rights law.”

Activists from the USA who would argue for the precedence of international rights for border affairs, workers, and migrant workers may argue that they have the rest of the Americas on their side. In this case, where do real Americans stand?