Friday, May 21, 2010 - 2:15 PM

Speaking of U.S.-Mexico relations, I see that some lawmakers weren't happy that Mexican President Felipe Calderon criticized Arizona's new immigration law in his speech to Congress yesterday:
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said that Calderon's statements about American laws were out of bounds. "I don't think we should have some foreign leader come in here and criticize the statute of a state, where they are implementing a federal law on a state basis," Hatch said of the Arizona immigration law.
He also chafed at Calderon's call on the U.S. to revisit the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. "We don't need someone coming in here and telling us how to handle an explicit clause of the Constitution," Hatch said. "I like President Calderon. I know him, I like him, he has a very difficult job. But it was inappropriate to say what he said."
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), whose state shares a border with Mexico, rejected Calderon's assertion that the Arizona law allows racial profiling. "It was inappropriate for President Calderon to lecture Americans on our own state and federal laws," Cornyn said.
The senators are certainly entitled to voice disagreement with Calderon on this or any issue, but I think they doth protest too much about the "appropriateness" of what the president said. American leaders -- inlucing senators -- lecture foreign governments on their laws all the time. Do they senators also think it was inappropriate when the Vice President stood up in the Bosnian parliament and said the country must join the E.U. or "descend into ethnic chaos that defined your country for the better part of a decade." (Well... maybe that one was actually a little inappropriate.)
In any case, these senators are no shrinking violets when it comes to calling out foreign governments on human rights violations. They're free to disagree with Calderon but they seem a little oversensitive when they assert that they shouldn't have to listen to him.
This wasn't Muammar Qaddafi, it was the president of Mexico. Two allied democracies should be able to have a grownup discussion about important issues -- including the Mexican military's appalling human rights record -- without the unecessary umbrage-taking.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
It was inappropriate not only because he was lecturing us on our domestic policies but because it was highly hypocritical on his part considering Mexico's own immigration policies.
Another thing, if you're going to compare his lecturing with what our elected representatives have said, please don't use Old Joe as an example. We all know Joe has a unique talent for putting his foot in his mouth so let's just leave him in the "Old Joe" exception case and not the norm.
I also think it's very different for a foreign leader to urge another country's officials to join an organization like the EU (and tell them why) compared with Calderon giving his legally speculative analysis on what this law (yes, reaffirming federal law) will lead to. He needs to take responsibility for his own area of influence and start trying to come up with more innovative proposals to combat the cartels. I think it's fairly obvious that the Obama administration gave a green light to Calderon to express his disapproval over the AZ law, which was irresponsible politicizing on their part. It's clear that the administration simply wants to point to another influential leader who's "in their camp" of disapproving of the legislation. The state law, and federal law by extension, should not be at the top of the list of items for consideration in this very important relationship. Let's be honest though, while the US is certainly a contributing factor to the cartel's growing power and the cross-border violence that has strangled places like Juarez, Mexico has done jack s**t over the years to fulfill their end of the deal and start addressing the systemic failures that their country has largely grown to tolerate. As many have pointed out, Mexico is rich in natural resources, an obviously beautiful place that lends itself to tourism & foreign investment, has the human capital to back a strong workforce, and shares a border with the largest market for economic growth. With all due respect President Calderon, you have bigger fish to fry, now get cooking!
The Second Ammendment and Hypocrisy
1. Mexican immigration policies are far worse than what has ben passed in Arizona. At least we don't have policies mandating that immigration cannot severely upset the ethnic makeup of the country.
2. My main problem with his speech was his call to reinstate the assault weapons ban. It'll be a cold day in hell before any of us let that prick take our weapons. I could care less if cartels are using them to fight off the Mexican police. Maybe they should have been a bit more proactive about their cartels when the cartels were weak. But no, the Mexicans only dealt with the cartels once they were too big to control.
1.- USA is the main lecturer of the world...and actually is not an example for all to follow. It seems to me that most USA citizens have a very thin skyn. Its not the 80`s or 70`s people..it is time for another countries to lecture USA about internal politicas ( like your weak finance regulation, conservative and unfair trade agreements, unjust wars..etc)
2.- Well enjoy your assault weapons at home and the drugs in your cities!!..by the way...where are the USA cartel? and please dont lecture me that the drug cartels are only mexicans..I think some police depts. in the USA-Mexico frontier needs some cleaning.
3.-What immigration policies? please tell!dont just bash it! argument!
Ramirez has a great cartoon on this with Calderon lecturing us by saying:
It's America's fault we do nothing to stop Mexicans from fleeing our corrupt, violent and jobless country.
And, of course, Obama agreeing with him.
It is quite funny that some readers of Foreign Policy cannot understand the meaning of co-responsability..oh well...
Please explain then...I remember us bailing out Mexico in the 90s; does that have something to do with it. Thanks.
"Doth" is the first person, singular form of "do," and, when Gertrude claims the lady "doth protest too much," she means promise, not object.
Means freedom of speech, by anyone, anywhere. I have no problem with Presidente Calderon saying what he said where he said it and I will defend his right to do so on American soil.
In this case it was also very helpful because El Presidente's remarks exposed his hypocrisy, Mexico's schizophrenic attitude towards immigration and sparked a healthy debate about our attitudes towards Mexico.
First, Calderon's hypocrisy was evident, he wants the United States to provide the citizens of his nation with a better standard of living and more social services than he is willing to give them at home.
Second, for the first time in history we in the US are talking about Mexico's own draconian immigration policies and quotas.
Third, assault weapons. Can we finally put to rest the notion that Mexican drug gangs are crossing the border to buy weapons? The fully automatic M-16's, M-4's and other equipment the drug gangs get cannot be purchased anywhere in the US. We KNOW where they are coming from they are military weapons that we have given to the Mexican government that are then sold by the Federales and Mexican Army to the drug cartels.
Calderon has had his say, now we need to let him know what we think.
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
(8)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE