It's just breathtaking (even for those of us who no longer breathe) for an American politician, or two of them, to fault the Mexican government for "contempt" of American policy. Only the ignorant, tone deaf and out of touch (or cynical?) could do that without shame. Even the dead wonder about several things swept up in the flow of this hypocritical sewage.
I'll just focus on one of these things, for the sake of not confusing the two members of the House(s) of Representatives (of the United States and of Oregon) with too many facts at one time.
Americans first "butted in" to Mexican politics, of course, with the Monroe Doctrine and then with an army that invaded the country. That war was fought to protect American illegal immigrants to Mexico who, settling in Mexico decided that they didn't want to assimilate, learn the language or to adopt Mexican values. Eventually this completely un provoked military conquest led to the annexation of a substantial amount of Mexico, itself, to the United States. Why settle for anchor babies when you can just take the whole place away from it's rightful owners? Abraham Lincoln, then a mere member of Congress, opposed that war for what it was--an imperialist adventure. It was, by the way, an attempt by Southern politicos to get more territory--more states--to bolster its control of Congress to prevent the undermining of salvery.
If only American presidents, through our history, had only done what Mexico's president is now instructed to do by a sneering Representative McClintock, such instruction to which our Representative Esquivel of Jackson County, Oregon adds his own hail and hearty "right on." Imagine if interference from the United States in the affairs of Latin American countries was limited to our president giving speeches!
Instead, American presidents and Congresses have a record (that cannot be contested) of supporting a long stream of military invasions, creating revolution and engaging in political murder, funding death squads, and manipulating debt to demand that economies be "reformed" so as to allow America "access" to resources and markets, backing up corrupt elites that economically marginalize the majority of the citizens of these countries we have "helped."
In fact, the United States looks more and more every day like one of those countries, politically and economically. With more and more of the wealth of this country being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, we look more and more like countries south of our borders from which people flee looking for work. Capital is currently "on strike" in the United States--withholding hiring--to bully politicians into keeping health, safety and financial regulation in the same hamstrung position it was left by the Bush Cheney administration....I digress.
Lectures from American politicians to Latin American countries about not meddling in our political discussions? We continue to operate the infamous "School of the Americans" where Latin American "leaders" (and those being groomed to become leaders) are being and have been trained for decades in how to replace current leaders if they turn out not to our liking and how to support those who "play ball" with us. It comes down to teaching them to do things contrary to the limits we once believed should be put on governments and up with which we would not put (at least I hope we would not) from our own military. Torture, for example, and other state terrorism inflicted on their own population is included in the curriculum.
Against this backdrop of commonly known and uncontroverted history any American politician--whether a federal or a state representative--lecturing any latin American president or leader (even Fidel or Senor Chavez) sounds like a shrill ignoramus.
Such politicians and their followers live up to the description of a newsman of my day--they are jackals who are worshipped by jackasses. (If you don't know who I am writing about Google the quote.)
Immigration policy is beyond the ambit of the duties of a state representative, a fact currently understood in all but one of our states (although an activist US Supreme Court--looking at "intent of the founders" rather than the preamble to the Constitution for guidance--that is capable of butting into an election to name a president in a most unconstitutional way, could well decide it's up to the states to preempt federal law--which is a new way of nullifying that law).
Mr. Esquivel would be better served, as would his constituents, if he could come up with some new ideas for Oregon economic recovery that were not a reprise of the Bush era policies that got us in this mess. Here's a hint--make Oregon's income tax progressive, again. Let the people with the best seats in the house pay the most for their tickets: let those who benefit from the way state and federal policy sets up the economy pay their fair share to keep it set up that way. Just an idea that seems to make enough sense at most every athletic venue. It's not like it's "socialist."
Unable to do that, however (because the point of Republican economic policy is to accelerate, not halt, the concentration of wealth), the Good Representative from Medford (like his counter part in Congress from California) will keep trying to distract us with fear of illegal immigrants.
It seems easier and easier to fool the American people. But it's damned hard to fool the dead. I'll seeing you (and don't doubt that).
