As I've argued in the past, there's only so much that our own immigration policies can achieve as long as the economic "push factors" that drive immigration prevail.

Actually, your argument was that if immigration policies resulted in millions coming across illegally, then ceasing all those policies would have zero effect. It was very poor reasoning, I think. To me, it means that those policies have only amounted to a finger in the dike -- stopping one source of crossing while leaks spring up elsewhere. To me, that means do much more to stop the leaks, while shoring up the dike as well. More border enforcement would help the leaks; more employer sanctions and populist shaming would help as well.

There are other avenues: Helping poor Mexicans to encourage them not to leave would be one; but that boils down to giving financial aid to the poor of a country when we're clearly not willing to do the same for the poor and troubled souls in our own country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...protect AMLO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Obrador wins in Mexico and Republicans keep both houses of Congress in the USA then the whole world will know that Mexico has a fair electoral system and the USA does not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How much battier can they get? I hope Obrador wins, but...?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since Bush is selling out the US maybe the Mexicans will buy the Liberty Bell and the Statue of Liberty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Better get that wall up quick, Georgie!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While Americans mindlessly gloat about democracy, the Mexicans hold real elections. They have more democracy.

While Americans mindlessly prate on about liberty, gay Canadians can marry and marijuana has been largely decriminalized there. They have more freedom.

It's funny that the Americans talk about putting walls up on the borders. The Mexicans and Canadians may build their own first.

What a bad joke America has become for those of us who are unfortunate enough to be living here in the 21st century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are building the NAFTA superhighway right now. If Obrador was really against it then there's no way "we" are going to let him win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

until #9. After finishing the list, I'm with you about 20-30%.

9: Referring to election fraud in the states as though it's a fact, with the conspirators having been tried and convicted (or even, for that matter, formally accused) is pretty deceptive. But I guess I should expect that; everyone on this site takes for granted that Bush stole the election and bought Kennedy's story simply because they believed it before they read the first word.

8: I'm shocked that you don't know this, Joshua. We do already have public funding of major party campaigns and we also have matching funds for all qualified candidates. From usinfo.state.gov:
In regard to presidential campaigns, the laws provide for optional public matching funds for qualified candidates in the prenomination period. To qualify for the matching funds, candidates seeking their parties' presidential nominations are required to raise $5,000 in private, individual contributions of $250 or less in at least 20 states. Then the federal government matches each contribution from an individual to qualified candidates up to $250, although the federal subsidies may not exceed half the prenomination campaign spending limit, which was $27.6 million in 1992.

The federal government also provides public funds to pay the costs of the national nominating conventions of the two major political parties. In 1992, each of the parties received a grant of about $11 million. Minor parties are eligible for a partial convention subsidy if their candidates received more than five percent of the vote in the previous presidential election.

In the general election, major-party presidential candidates are eligible to receive public treasury grants to fund their campaigns. As noted, those grants amounted to $55.2 million each in 1992. Provisions also are made for partial public funding of qualified minor party and new party candidates.

What we don't have is a cap on total spending, but as it happens the Democrats received far more private funding for the last election than the Republicans did. So even if more money affected the voter turnout significantly (and I have read some studies that say it doesn't), passing legislation like this would only help the party you so despise.

7: I assume you mean this in contradistinction to the States, in which case, see #9. Otherwise, that's awesome and I'm glad to see them moving forward.

6: That's neat, but it seems unlikely that it'll significantly impact the election since both parties are campaigning that way.

5: There isn't really a big difference here, either. The really vicious attack ads don't get played in either country. In Mexico it's because it's legally limited, and in the States it's because the candidates know those ads will backfire. Remember the Bush-Hitler ad that was on MoveOn and renounced by Kerry?

4: This, too, sounds an awful lot like a Bush v. Kerry difference. Even you describe them as "center-left" and "center-right".

3: Are the Democrats and Republicans really that much alike in economic issues? The Republicans' strategy of "cut and spend" versus the Democrats' "hike to balance" are pretty differen't, aren't they? We aren't in the position that Mexico is in economically so we don't need another New Deal. The fact that both parties agree on this doesn't mean they have the same plan for the economy.
(continued below...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

2: Both candidates should want to prevent people from going to the States. Why? Because they need those hard-working citizens to build their own economy. The people who are going to the states are those who are highly motivated to work to make money to feed their families. Even if it's not a large proportion of those people, Mexico needs all the help they can get. Ironically, I (unlike most conservatives and liberals) welcome more hard-working residents from Mexico. The way I see it, even if they send most of the money back to Mexico, they're still contributing to our economy by A) spending SOME money on necessities in the states, and B) working for lower wages than citizens would work for. A buck saved is a buck earned.

1: So... when there's a president in office that you don't like, you want to get revenge on him by making his life and policy decisions more inconvenient? You want to "drive him batty"? Come on, Joshua. We're not in grade school anymore. If you want to root for Obradon, then you should. But don't form opinions based on what's going to make your enemies' lives miserable -- if you did that, you'd welcome more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If history is any rule for corruption to be judged by The PRI held a virtual monopoly on power for over 70 years, the communist 70 years, now the USA is how many years into its rule of corruption?
AlienSlave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hi~
This is a very good summary of the election. Fine job.

God Speed,
David

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because it appears that all of the above have only been following a US and Mexican mainstream Press version of events I strongly recommend investigating some other sources such as Narconews.com where you can find information about the Otra Campana (Other Campaign) and the Sixth Declaration, a non-electoral campaign of the EZLN trying to draw attention to the reality of the ways in which the Mexican Presidential campaign is a criminal farce. The three current candidates represent the right, the even further right, and the almost as far right. The Mainstream Press in Mexico and the US have chosen to represent the candidate of the latter, Obrador, as Center-left. He is, but only vaguely in comparison to the other two, but there are NO left candidates allowed to run as mexican election rules require the endorsement of a sanctioned political party; hence, no independents, and the ruling families are not likely to let that change. The PRD was considerably further left when it was formed in the early '80s but has continued to drift to the right since, largely due to assassinations of organizers since then around the country. This is a fate of irrelevancy similar to the Dems in the US and the NDP in Canada where what they say often has little relevance to what they do. So the world is to be exposed to multinational protests on July 2 (guess which presses will ignore them) to attempt to draw attention to the fact that all three candidates are followers of forms of neoliberalism and beholden to facets of the mexican oligarchy/corporate power. It is hardly coincidental that the recent violent state repressions of the farmers in Atenco, the miners in Michoacan, the teachers in Oaxaca, and other examples are in such close proximity to the election. The PRI and PAN are delighted to have an opportunity to demonize their opponent by tarring him with the brush of anarchic leftism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THEY BOTH LOVE "FREE" TRADE AND COMMERCE AND CUTTING TAXES FOR THE UBER-RICH WHILE RAPING THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is the MX electorate.
I spent some time in Mexico City (D.F.) couple of months ago and was struck by how politically aware, sensitized and vital the general populace was, from taxi drivers, street vendors, waiters and campesinos to street kids.
If anyone needs proof, just spend one afternoon and evening in Zocalo, where political parties of all stripes compete for attention, including the indigenous peoples and Otra Campagna/Marxist party.
They refer to Calderon by the GPS coordinates of his palatial home in the hills that can be seen from space using Google Earth.
Would that we had such enlightened electorate here, unfortunately, it has been ravaged and polluted by decades of toxic mix of consumerism and propagandist, outrightly lying, dumbed down corporate media.
Instead of us designing our social and political environment, it turned the tables and redesigned us as a devolved subspecies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: last sentence in your article, How could any one or thing drive the Bushies any crazier? It isn't good when the patients run a psychiatriac hospital; it is worse when Bushies, who have delusions of adequacy, try to run the USA & bungle it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only topic not mentioned was exit polling, which is going to be the biggest issue in the coming US elections. First, there is the issue of whether or not the media are going to run comprehensive exit polling or not. If exit polls are carried out, and if they don't match the spread of 'reported electoral results' from rigged voting machines, then you can bet that heavy electoral fraud was carried out in this country - a total perversion of the most basic democratic principles.

Are the voting machines in the US rigged? They are easy to hack, see the most recent and comprehensive study from Brennan Center For Justice - someone can walk in with the equivalent of a camera memory stick and change the outcome for an entire state. No doubt about it. That's what the Republicans are banking on to maintain their majority in the House and Senate.

I guess it's time to start looking to Mexico as a beacon of hope and freedom... well, maybe not quite yet. This East German barbed wire wall that's to be built across the border - is it designed to keep people out, or to keep people in, or to just serve as an aid in controlling the domestic population? Perhaps it will aid in the creation of a new kind of 'guest worker program' -one in which American citizens are herded onto buses, shipped down to the maquiladora zone to serve as cheap labor for ten dollars a day, and then returned to their Texas trailer parks when their indentured servitude is up.

P.S. I was about to attack the NYT for not reporting the Brennan study - but hey! The AP put it on the wire and the NYT picked it up: New York Times and AP coverage of Brennan study. A few glimmers of light is always good news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

•
Time Magazine, July 3, 2006 - in order to further confuse the American People, Time Magazine has a special issue featuring the history and politics of Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt who ran for President on the Progressive Party Ticket and who supported the first environmental initiatives, wage and hour laws, social security, trust busting, etc.
To completely rebuke any positive message that might have been gathered by the masses, Time finished the segment with a summary by none other than Karl Rove. Yes, Karl Rove who epitomizes everything that Theodore Roosevelt opposed.
In summary, Rove's Lies:
1. It is every American's responsibility to be active in our civic life - and the Republican party will do everything to discourage anybody who disagrees with them from participating.
2. Politics should be animated by large, important ideas - and the Republican Party will make sure that such insignificant issues dwarf all others that nobody has an opportunity to discuss anything else.
3. The United States while not flawless is a profound force for good in the world - and if you don't believe it we will bomb the hell out of you.
4. Leadership matters - and Republican will make sure that the American public never know that the only leadership in Washington is practiced by Darth Cheney, while they let you admire the bulge in Bush's flightsuit.
5. A spirited clash of ideas is not only inevitable in politics but helpful - but character assasination and lies always capture the imagination of Fox network news, so its more effective.
6. There can be great joy in politics - and you would never believe how much Republicans laugh at how the right wing idiots bought into all of our lies. Republican activists laugh all the time!
7. Character matters - The Republican Party can destroy it with lies anytime it controls the media and all three branches of government.
Thanks a lot Time Magazine. When did Fox Network News enter the publishing world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is so funny. The guy is running on a 'tax the rich' agenda. Good old class warfare stolen from the Dem. playbooks.

These people never realize this never works. You can punish the rich all you want but it doesn't make the poor any better off. Just look at what Hugo has done to his country. Look at what decades of Castro has done to his country. He destroyed the wealthy class and the poor are war more worse off now.

These 3rd world people need to embrace capitalism. No other system compares. None has raised so many people out of poverty and none ever will. But the 3rd worlds can keep trying their luck. Their loss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

See the article by Greg Palast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's right, the conservative has won. It is now agreed the leftist cannot catch up to his lead.

Long Live Capitalism!

This will result in millions fewer Mexicans making a run for the border because their country will embrace the values that has made our country the wealthiest and most successful country in the world. The country which everyone wants to come to because Capitalism rocks baby! Oh ya!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's right, the conservative has won. It is now agreed the leftist cannot catch up to his lead.

Long Live Capitalism!

This will result in millions fewer Mexicans making a run for the border because their country will embrace the values that has made our country the wealthiest and most successful country in the world. The country which everyone wants to come to because Capitalism rocks baby! Oh ya!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did President Bush's neoconservatives dipping its magical hand in the election to keep NAFTA and other things intact by making sure the candidate it wants for its economic policy is chosen? What? U.S. interventionism in Latin America? Surely the U.S. never installed a ruler in Latin America in any of its history! LOL.

Mexico and Florida have more in common than heat.

Greg Palast
Saturday July 8, 2006
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1815601,00.html

Jeb's winning scrub list was the creation of a private firm, ChoicePoint of Alpharetta, Georgia. Now, it seems, ChoicePoint is back in the voter list business - in Mexico - at the direction of the Bush government. Months ago, I got my hands on a copy of a memo from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, marked "secret", regarding a contract for "intelligence collection of foreign counter-terrorism investigations".
Given that the memo was dated September 17 2001, a week after the attack on the World Trade Centre, hunting for terrorists seemed like a heck of a good idea. But oddly, while all 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, the contract was for obtaining the voter files of Venezuela, Brazil ... and Mexico.
What those Latin American countries have in common, besides a lack of terrorists, is either a left-leaning president or a left candidate for president ahead in the opinion polls, leaders of the floodtide of Bush-hostile Latin leaders. It seems that the Bush government feared the leftist surge was up against the US's southern border.
As we found in Florida in 2000, my investigations team on the ground in Mexico City this week found voters in poor neighbourhoods, the left's turf, complaining that their names were "disappeared" from the voter rolls. ChoicePoint can't know what use the Bush crew makes of its lists. But erased registrations require us to ask, before this vote is certified, was there a purge as there was in Florida? Notably, ruling party operatives carried registration lists normally in the hands of elections officials only ... The ruling party's hand-picked electoral commission counted a mere 402,000 votes more for their candidate, Felipe Calderón, over challenger Andrés Manuel López Obrador. That's noteworthy in light of the surprise showing of candidate Señor Blank-o (the 827,000 ballots supposedly left "blank"). We've seen Mr Blank-o do well before - in Florida in 2000 when Florida's secretary of state (who was also co-chair of the Bush campaign) announced that 179,000 ballots showed no vote for the president. The machines couldn't read these ballots with "hanging chads" and other technical problems. Humans can read these ballots with ease, but the hand-count was blocked by Bush's conflicted official.
And so it is in Mexico. The Calderón "victory" is based on a gross addition of tabulation sheets. His party, the Pan, and its election officials are refusing López Obrador's call for a hand recount of each ballot which would be sure to fill in those blanks.
Blank ballots are rarely random. In Florida in 2000, 88% of the supposedly blank ballots came from African-American voting districts - that is, they were cast by Democratic voters. In Mexico, the supposed empty or unreadable ballots come from the poorer districts where the challenger's Party of the Democratic Revolution (PDR) is strongest.
There's an echo of the US non-count in the south-of-the-border tally. It's called "negative drop-off". In a surprising number of districts in Mexico, the federal electoral commission logged lots of negative drop-off: more votes for lower offices than for president. Did López Obrador supporters, en masse, forget to punch in their choice?
...The International Republican Institute, an arm of Bush's party apparatus funded by the US govt, admits to providing tactical training for PAN .. www.GregPalast.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]