2006 April 29 Saturday
Mexican "Nothing Gringo" Boycott

Now if only the Mexcans would boycott coming to Gringo land.

MEXICO CITY - ``Nothing gringo,'' warns the rallying cry of Mexican activists calling for a May 1 boycott of all U.S. businesses south of the border.

The campaign, aimed at pressuring Congress to legalize undocumented migrants, was timed to coincide with ``The Great American Boycott,'' in which activists are urging migrants in the United States to skip work and avoid spending money to demonstrate their importance to the U.S. economy.

The Mexican boycott was being promoted on Web sites and through e-mail messages, one of which warns that ``people shouldn't buy anything from the interminable list of American businesses in Mexico. . . . That means no Dunkin' Donuts, no McDonald's, Burger King, Starbucks, Sears, Krispy Kreme or Wal-Mart.''

Happy days. Now if they could only decide to boycott our border, our cities, our hospital emergency rooms, our welfare offices, and other institutions we'd be in great shape.

The Mexicans are too dumb to realize that American corporations are on their side against the American people.

The American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico said organizers are risking a backlash and foolishly targeting some of their best allies, since U.S. corporations have actively lobbied Congress for immigration reform including legalization for many of the estimated 11 million undocumented migrants.

Mexicans' refusal to "buy American" on May 1 could further polarize the debate and make reform supporters seem anti-American at the very moment that lobbyists are trying to persuade lawmakers in Washington to pass a bill that would benefit migrants, worries Larry Rubin, the chamber's president.

"This is like shooting oneself in the foot," Rubin said. "U.S. companies have been the first to lobby, launching a huge lobbying effort for immigration reform. … Why hurt something that is helping you?"

Yes, corporate interests who want cheap labor are in favor of illegal aliens and worker permit programs. But these same corporate interests are not in favor of paying for the health care costs, education, and other costs of these "cheap" workers and their families. No, they expect us to do that.

A quarter of Mexicans in Mexico work for gringo companies.

A quarter of Mexico's formal private-sector jobs with regular pay are provided by U.S. firms, according to the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico.

American companies with plants in Mexico ought to notice that all those deportees who get sent back to Mexico will be available for hire at even lower wages in Mexico.

In the United States the leaders of the big May 1, 2006 work boycott and street protest hope to shut down whole cities.

"There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno," said Jorge Rodriguez, a union official who helped organize earlier rallies credited with rattling Congress as it weighs the issue.

I hope they succeed and that they carry plenty of Mexican flags. These protests anger middle America and are good for the immigration restrictionist movement.

Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist predicts the marches and boycott will backfire.

"It's intimidation when a million people march down main streets in our major cities under the Mexican flag," said Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman volunteer border patrol group. "This will backfire," he said.

Some Latinos have also expressed concerns that the boycott and marches could stir up anti-immigrant sentiment.

One person's concern is another person's hope. Yes, by all means, demand legalization and demand the conversion of the American southwest back into a province of Mexico. You'll cut a couple of years off the wait for a full border barrier wall replete with barbed wire. Carry lots of Mexican flags. Shut down streets. Pull your kids out of schools. Draw plenty of attention to yourselves. By all means awaken a sleeping giant.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 April 29 02:00 PM  Immigration Politics


Comments
MC said at April 29, 2006 5:38 PM:

"It is interesting and suspicious that, all of a sudden, and in contrast to the Los Angeles demonstrations a few weeks ago, the sea of Mexican flags of “la raza” have been replaced by white dress (“peace”?) and American flags (the Spanish speeches remained -there is only that much play acting one could expect!). One should give the obviously well funded and organized groups behind it credit--but then, they have long experience and enjoy the unwavering support of such benefactors as the Ford Foundation, the Catholic Church, and assorted elements of the Left.

The demonstrators and their spokesmen are on the streets in support of three great lies, and they are fully aware of it.

Great lie #1. “We are all immigrants.” Hence there is no difference between my grandparents, who arrived by boat from Europe at the turn of the twentieth century [legally], were checked for health at Ellis Island and entered the United States without the benefit of bilingual education, free “emergency” health care (that includes emergency room treatment for colds), or “affirmative action” for “anchor” babies, and those who cross the Mexican border at will, making a joke of the law. To compare the willing accomplices of coyotes or polleros (border traffickers of people) to legal immigrants is an insult to the latter and to give illegals the status of “victims” (of “racism”, “exploitation”, etc) is absurd.

Great lie #2. “Without illegal immigrants the country will come to a standstill.” Really? If America’s prosperity and superpower status are indeed dependent on the price of California onions and strawberries, or the cleaning ladies of its restaurants, we are in greater trouble than we think. If, as most economists, on both sides, argue, the percentage of illegal immigrants in the labor force is less than 5% [of immigrants or of labor force? rephrase to “less than 5% of illegals are in the labor force” or “illegals make up less than 5% of labor force”], virtually none of whom have education and skills, the economic argument is no argument at all, just a pretext for hidebound farmers who refuse to mechanize, businesses looking for cheap labor, and the politicians they contribute to.

Great lie #3. “Illegal immigrants are honest, hard-working people who only want to participate in the American dream.” That is when the term “illegal” is used at all, which it seldom is. Indeed, all we hear is “undocumented immigrants,” as if the dog ate their papers. Instead, the 12 million or so illegals have planned and willingly paid thousands of dollars each for breaking the laws of this country: so much for “honesty.” As for the “American” dream, it is all in green hues only, rather than red, white, and blue. That explains the now conveniently disappeared Mexican flags, and the fact that remittances from illegals are Mexico’s largest or second-largest source of hard currency, depending on the year. This lie reaches grotesque levels when Latino politicians and activists call the illegals “heroes” or when hierarchs of the Catholic Church openly espouse the notion of open borders – and law-breaking. If the Cardinal of Los Angeles and his colleagues are prepared to pay for the benefits received by the millions of illegals in their country, fine, that’s very Christian. But posturing as willing would-be martyrs is an insult to the memory of past Christian martyrs, not to mention bad citizenship.

Perhaps those who cling to the notion of illegal immigrants’ willingness to assimilate should look to Maywood, California as an omen. That town, with a 90 percent Hispanic population, most of it illegal, has formally decided to disregard all U.S. (and California ) immigration laws and regulations, going so far as not only giving “sanctuary” to illegals, but also prohibiting all police checks on drivers’ licenses and drunk drivers, because, God forbid, they may “profile” or “insult” illegals. That is Mexican lawlessness imported, combined with Californian political correctness.

And that largely explains why Mexico, under any kind of likely government, will not and cannot “do” anything about emigration to the United States. If all those now sending money back to Zacatecas or Chiapas would have to stay in Mexico, it is more than likely that, sooner or later, they would do something about elite corruption, incompetence and demagoguery.

While most of the pseudo-arguments about illegal immigration turn around its economic impact, which is by definition almost impossible to gauge, the real issue goes unmentioned, as it is cultural, and thus even harder to assess in terms of dollars. It is politically incorrect to even notice that America’s ability, and willingness, to assimilate millions of Hispanics (and not just Hispanics) has limits, and those limits are being reached now. Before the floodgates were opened in 1965, immigration to the United States was mostly of Asian or European origin, and thus one ocean or another lay between the new arrivals and their countries of origin. But Rio Grande is no ocean. Eastern and southern Europe, or Ireland, where previous waves of immigrants came from – legally – were not known for deep rooted anti-Americanism and historical resentment against the United States. Mexico is, and not just at elite levels.

And then there is the willingness to integrate immigrants, and do so on a timely basis. When the very idea of citizenship is under attack, openly or not, and the will to defend one’s culture is on sharp decline, absorbing millions of people who may not want to be integrated and who have their family across a long border is a doubtful proposition. What does citizenship mean when California and Maryland, to give only two examples, treat illegal immigrants and their “anchor kids” better than they treat Virginian or Pennsylvania born, five-generation citizens, by giving them access to state colleges at in-state resident cost? “Affirmative action” includes “Hispanics,” whether legal or not, as a privileged category, but not the descendants of legal immigrants through the centuries. More serious, and revealingly, the demonstrators in the street oppose not just the rule of law (one of America’s most distinctive cultural characteristics) but openly claim that citizenship is a right. Since when? Worse still, politicians also share that view, as demonstrated by the Senate and its barely disguised amnesty to millions of lawbreakers. Indeed, in Senate’s considered view, it seems, if you manage to break the law without being caught for long enough time, “fairness” dictates that you are entitled to American citizenship.

Whether most Senators are just trying to solve an inconvenient immigration “problem” now, or actually believe their own rhetoric about the mythical honest, hard working illegal, is perhaps unimportant. What is important is that they refuse to learn from past mistakes, like the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, which legalized the previous generation of illegals (thus creating the present, and larger one) and that they dance around the big issues: how far, how many?

For the likes of Mexican revanchists like MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan at (see www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/nt_const.html) there should be no limit. Indeed, MECHhA would not tolerate Americans in the southwestern United States and California. For Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles there should no limit, either. Now, Cardinal Mahony may just behave like any politician, by representing the views of his constituents (“flock”), never mind the national interest. But why is the Senate avoiding unpleasant facts, such as the reality that half of the population of the Mexican state of Zacatecas lives in the United States, or that a large majority of Hondurans intend to emigrate to the United States? What is the legal, practical or moral argument for “legalizing” some 12 million illegal immigrants now, but not the millions who will come in the near future?

We are told that we should be “realistic” and that closing the Mexican border is impossible. That is a copout and sheer defeatism. It could be done and, in some sectors, has been done and it works. If Israel could stop much more motivated Islamist terrorists with its wall, so could the United States stop illegal migrants. At the very least, a well built and protected border obstacle will drastically diminish the number of lawbreakers and make the cost of using polleros for crossing – now some $1,200 per head for Mexicans, many times more for non-Mexicans – prohibitive.

We are told that we should be “realistic” and that one cannot deport 12 million people. That, too, is a copout and sheer defeatism, as well as a misstatement of the problem and solution. The point is not to have 12 million handcuffed people forced across the Rio Grande, but to deny them the ill-gained advantages of illegal residence and just wait. If all benefits are denied, as well as employment, and deportations are sped up, in a few years the illegal population will diminish by attrition. Yes, it will take some time, but it also took time to allow the problem to fester.

Contrary to all-out opponents of any immigration, there is some need for immigrants – highly skilled ones, as well as unskilled. But the first group is already coming and the second could be included in an honest guest-worker program. Honest means just that – temporary working permits under regulated norms, with a share of the wages on escrow, to be cashed only upon return home. And once the California farmer now hiring illegals has to pay legal wages, and risk being heavily penalized if he does not, his appetite for complicity in lawbreaking will diminish, as will the number of unskilled immigrants.

The chances of any of that happening soon are minimal. Thus the future is dangerous. If, for whatever reason or pretext, Republicans and Democrats alike refuse to even admit the nature of the problem – it amounts to an invasion, rather than uncontrolled immigration – let alone solve it, sooner or later other immigrant groups will give it a try. It already happened in Europe, where (mostly) Muslim immigration is out of control, with Islamist terrorism as an inevitable corollary, and the mainstream politicians refused until recently to even mention the problem. The result was the growth of anti-immigration populist parties, some ideologically quite unsavory; inter-ethnic and religious conflict; and cultural decline. How long will it take until one, or more, of the Arizona ranchers whose property and living are being destroyed on a daily basis by hordes from across the border reacts violently? And what then? Are juries going to jail an American whose government refused to protect him and his property for defending himself against lawbreakers? We can already hear the howls of “racism” promiscuously thrown against all those defending law and order and their country’s culture, but how long is that discredited attempt to stop the debate going to work?"

What we need for our Government to do Immediately... If they cared about the future of AMERICA.

1. Have the military close the borders and construct a 2000 mile fence!
2. Enforce ALL immigration laws!
3. Require immediate deportation of ALL illegal entries and visa overstays in our custody.
4. Require ALL employers to use the Social Security Verification System for ALL hires.
5. Deny ALL illegal alien births 'automatic citizenship.'
6. Deny ALL illegal aliens a FREE K-12 education.
7. Deny ALL illegal aliens ANY and ALL 'public benefits.'
8. Deny ALL illegal aliens driver's licenses and in-state college tuition.
9. Deny ALL illegal aliens FREE emergency medical care.
10. Verify ALL voter's citizenship, before permission to vote.

John S Bolton said at April 30, 2006 12:15 AM:

The 'Yanqui go home' mob scene is here in their millions, telling Americans, in threatening tones, to go back to Plymouth rock. After such appeasement from the leaders of the major parties, a revolution of rising expectations is snowballing this very moment. This is the way wars are started, and no end of power flows from war.
Will the Mexican demonstration, with its every threat answered by officials with apology and encouragements, meekly wear white and carry US flags?
Are officials preparing for riots and the burning of a great many stores, as they should, given the hostile nature of almost all of the participants; or will they pretend to be completely surprised when violence and looting occurs?

John S Bolton said at April 30, 2006 1:17 AM:

Now all those who took reassurance from those who said; 'they're just here to work', are about to get a jolt. What, there are anti-American family values that don't stop at the Rio Grande? The combination of appeasement, which is sufficient to set off the 'revolution of rising expectations' among the low; with a quite small percentage of setbacks, and even provocation, is ideal for eliciting maximal conflict. The effrontery of the Mexican demonstration itself requires a counterprovocation, and this will be forthcoming.

Rick Darby said at April 30, 2006 2:05 PM:

Please see my posting titled "I, Gringo," at Reflecting Light.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©