default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Fox, Bush, media want amnesty — Americans don’t

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:00 pm | Updated: 1:36 pm, Mon Mar 19, 2012.

Fasten your seat belts, folks. The ride ahead is going to be rocky.

Vicente Fox, snake oil salesman extraordinaire, has just finished a trip to the Midwest demanding "justice" for Mexican illegal aliens.

Fox will return in September to go for "the whole enchilada," a phrase his double-talking compadre Juan Hernandez is fond of.

The translation for "enchilada" is amnesty.

Before I tell you the way things really are between Mexico and the U.S., a tip of the sombrero to Señor Fox and his advance men. No one can set the table any better than the Mexican contingent did.

First, Fox immediately sized up President George W. Bush as a chump - a real patsy for Fox's open-borders agenda. Bush is out of his league against Fox. Joe Guzzardi

Then Fox appointed Hernandez, a former professor at the University of Texas-Dallas, to his cabinet. Hernandez's job is to go to every city with a substantial Mexican population to tell them that, even though they are in the U.S. illegally, they are entitled to driver's licenses, financial aid for college tuition, additional health benefits, amnesty and God knows what else.

Fox and Hernandez have the mainstream media eating out of their hands. Whatever they said is endorsed heartily in the editorial pages the following day.

No matter how outrageous the Mexican agenda, the media buys it hook, line and sinker.

Amnesty is obviously a matter of great importance to the U.S. but the media refuses to tell both sides of the story. Here's an example.

On June 23, the Los Angeles Times reported in the first sentence of its front page story that "Mexican and American officials unveiled a sweeping program Friday to improve safety for people crossing illegally into the U.S."

In other words, the governments of Mexico and the U.S. are working together to make it easier for Mexicans to break our laws. That two sovereign nations conspire to enable one nation to break the other's laws is unprecedented in world history. The Times reported it with the nonchalance of yesterday's Dodger game.

That the reporters might show some indignation at the very idea of aiding law-breakers is too much to expect. But the story quoted seven sources who thought the idea of aiding and abetting law-breakers was just dandy. Anyone opposed? None who were cited.

With Bush in his pocket and the media his lap dogs, Fox doesn't need much more help. But, smart fellow that he is, Fox has a very well-defined plan. Simply stated, his goal is to send as many Mexicans north as he possibly can.

Fox is way too cunning to state his objective so boldly. Everything is couched in feel-good phrases like "win-win," "real democracy" and "universal prosperity."

But in his five-year plan, "Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2001-2005," Fox outlines it all. One of his foreign policy strategic objectives "is to strengthen and defend the rights of all Mexicans abroad."

Fox projects a greater consular presence in the U.S. and "greater participation in multilateral organizations to promote common positions on issues of national interest such as migration."

And Bush, laboring under the absurd delusion that the more he gives away to the Mexicans, the more likely he is to receive their votes, can't get cozy enough with Fox.

So while America's leaders remain paralyzed by the fear that they might be called "racist" or by the thought that the Latino voting block (which they never had and never will) may turn against them, they allow Fox and Hernandez to come to town and tell us how things are going to be.

Here's a little straight talk: The Mexican population in the U.S. is nearly 20 million. Each and every one of them lives better here than they would in Mexico. Why else would they come?

Fox wants more for the Mexicans living in America.

Who among us doesn't want more?

The existing deal for Mexicans is pretty good. They come illegally, have little threat of being returned, find jobs not available in their country and frequently receive social services.

Their children attend K-12 schools at the taxpayers' expense and their newborn children become U.S. citizens.

And if Bush thinks "regularizing" (the new politically correct word for amnesty coined earlier this week) will stop illegal immigration, then he needs to do his math.

Before the 1986 amnesty, 5 million illegals lived in the U.S. According to Census 2000, 12 million illegals currently reside here.

In this heated debate, the following support granting amnesty - sorry, regularization - to illegal aliens: Presidents Jorge Bush and Vicente Fox, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and every major media outlet in the U.S.

And even though a CNN poll taken July 16 showed that 80 percent of all Americans are opposed to amnesty, who speaks on your behalf?

Absolutely no one, that's who. Unless, of course, you are willing to speak up for yourself.

Joe Guzzardi, an instructor at the Lodi Adult School, has been writing a weekly opinion column since 1988. He can be reached via e-mail.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

Recent Comments

Posted 21 hours ago by Joe Baxter.

article: San Joaquin County supervisors approve …

I am still wondering why someone that resides in Sacramento County should be concerned with San Joaquin County politics. Unless it is just …


Posted Yesterday by Joanne Bobin.

article: Letter: Obamacare is not the program pr…

Good work, Mr. Barrow. You have identified many in the past, and now finally with some results!


Posted Yesterday by Joanne Bobin.

article: Letter: Obamacare is not the program pr…

Thank you to the LNS for FINALLY rejecting a letter due to plagiarism. There have been countless instances of letters copied and pasted fr…


Posted 2 days ago by the old dog.

article: Letter: I’m not the one who should move…

Walter: Concerning "Swiftboats" another John did offend me. Kerry gives himself a Purple Heart while cutting himself shaving. …


Posted 2 days ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Liberal policies damage our ind…

[sleeping] http://youtu.be/cA8FTjAzRR8



Popular Stories


Should graduations return to the Grape Bowl?

Lodi Unified leaders are moving Lodi and Tokay high school graduations from the Grape Bowl to the Spanos Center at UOP in Stockton. They cite limited seating, costs and unpredictable weather at the Grape Bowl. But others say graduations at the Grape Bowl are an important Lodi tradition, and one reason many supported renovating the stadium. What do you think?

Total Votes: 90


Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists