Memo From Mexico | Cinco De Mayo Means Freedom From Foreigners. Why Don't We Try That In The U.S.?
Print Friendly and PDF

"The decision against holding a Cinco de Mayo the White House, after having such events the past two years, was not meant as a snub at Mexico for opposing the U.S. – led war with Iraq, a presidential spokesman said..."

(AP- "White House Says It's Not Snubbing Mexico," April 30, 2003)

It's bizarre when you think about it. The Bush/Rove administration feels obligated to apologize for not publicly celebrating a Mexican holiday!

How many times has Vicente Fox celebrated the Fourth of July in Los Pinos- the Mexican White House?

He could if he wanted to. Why not invite a delegation of some of us Americans who live in Mexico? (I could be invited - my wife voted for Fox!). The program could include some American music and folk dances. Then Fox could gush a little about how American expatriates have enriched the culture of Mexico.

I'm not holding my breath for an invitation. Just suggesting it shows the glaring double standard between Fox and Bush, and their treatment of each other's country.

But isn't Fox "pro-American?" That's what Paul Gigot, Michael Barone and a number of others have been telling us.

Their argument: if we don't prop up the Fox administration by surrendering our immigration policy and, ultimately, our sovereignty, then the "anti-Americans" will take over Mexico!

Oh, perish the thought! What a disaster!

If an "anti-American", and not Fox, were running Mexico, all kinds of bad things could happen!

Why, Mexico might even

Oops - that's what the Fox administration is doing right now!

Cinco de Mayo is a good occasion to take a look at U.S.-Mexican relations, see where they are going, and ask ourselves where we want them to take us?

Ridge And Creel

Juan Mann has already provided VDARE.COM readers with a good description of Tom Ridge's confused comments at his recent get-together with Mexico's blond Interior Minister, Santiago Creel. (Creel is being touted as a possible Mexican presidential candidate in 2006, so we may be dealing with him for a long time).

Before meeting with Ridge, Creel spoke to the Mexican media and said (my translation):

"Yes, we can take up the subject of security under a framework of

co-responsibility, but we also expect from the other party [the U.S.] what this means for our Mexicans who work on the other side of the border: their human rights, labor rights and recognition of legal residence."

I heartily support any U.S.-Mexican cooperation that's of mutual benefit. But please - pardon the pun - having the Mexican government help us with border security is like having the Fox guard the hen house.

Dubya Has Agreed To What?

Vicente Fox is under domestic political pressure over NAFTA. But he remains unswervingly committed to preserving – and expanding the treaty. As I have pointed out before, Fox's model is the European Union he so admires.

Fox defends NAFTA for having enabled Mexico to become the world's ninth largest economy, and the seventh largest exporter.

Well, the seventh-largest exporter of products. Mexico remains the world's #1 exporter of human beings! After all, campesinos who can't compete with cheap American exports can always emigrate northward!

Fox wants more than a trade pact. Universal reports that his future goals for NAFTA include "central axes of the European model of integration, among them a common currency and free transit of persons and jobs" – not "just the interchange of goods and services."

Fox's Secretary of Economy, Fernando Canales put it this way:

"We have a European which not only are goods and services exchanged without tariffs, but which has a common currency, free transit of persons and labor."

("Fox, por la integración total con EU y Canadá," Universal, April 25th, 2003)

Canales also affirmed that this concept "is accepted" by Jean Chretien - and George W. Bush. They have allegedly been examining it "since their first meetings".

Well, yes, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

And Don't Forget The United Nations

"The U.N. Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution...urging all nations to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families."

— "UNCHR Urges Nations To Protect Migrant Workers," April 24th, 2003 (EFE)

If ratified, the Convention is slated to take effect on July 1st.

Can you guess which countries co-sponsored the resolution?

Mexico was one of them, along with Peru and Paraguay.

What exactly does the Convention entail? Well,

"The Mexican representative who introduced the resolution said the convention offers the complete framework necessary to guarantee the fundamental rights of migrants regardless of their immigration status."

In other words, the convention is designed to make it harder for immigrant-receiving nations – principally English-speaking countries and Europe - to control their own borders.

That way, immigrant-sending nations can continue to use emigration as a safety valve rather than solving their own problems.

For the UN, the convention affords even more opportunities for meddling and more support in its aspirations for world governance.

Otto Reich's Unintentional Irony

In the wake of the Iraq War, and its negative fallout south of the border, Otto Reich, Bush's special envoy to Latin America, has sought to reassure the region.

Reich told Latin Americans not to worry - the U.S. had no plans to overthrow any governments in Latin America!

But the envoy's reassurance contained an unintentional irony:

"If you are not building weapons of mass destruction, if you are not killing your own people, if you are not violating the rights of your own people, if you are not invading your neighbors, etc., I don't think you have anything to worry about."

My emphasis! "Invading your neighbors"? The biggest invasion taking place nowadays is the invasion of the United States by Mexico!

The solution to the problem is not war. The solution is for our government to defend the borders, enforce our laws and take American citizenship seriously.

Conclusion: Cinco De Mayo And The American National Question

Cinco de Mayo celebrates a victory of the Mexican Army against the French, in a battle that took place at Puebla, Mexico on May the 5th (Cinco de Mayo), 1862. (I've visited the site where the battle occurred; it's an interesting place). Cinco de Mayo is celebrated as a victory of Mexico over foreign invaders.

Today, in 2003, the United States is being invaded and its sovereignty is at stake. This is not a battlefield invasion. But it is an attack nonetheless, on our sovereignty and survival as a nation.

What's worse is that our own government is collaborating with the invaders, making the invasion possible. Fox and company are just taking advantage of an easy target – the real culprits are our own leaders.

If the U.S. is to survive – which is the "National Question" we ask at VDARE.COM - ordinary Americans must understand this, and rise to the challenge. They must demand their leaders stop this invasion. Or they must get new leaders.

¡Felix Cinco de Mayo!

American citizen Allan Wall lives and works legally in Mexico, where he holds an FM-2 residency and work permit, but serves six weeks a year with the Texas Army National Guard, in a unit composed almost entirely of Americans of Mexican ancestry.  His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here; his website is here. Readers can contact Allan Wall at

Print Friendly and PDF