ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: How about non-Mexicans, Huh?

  1. #1
    Guest
    From: http://www.visalaw.com/03feb4/10feb403.html


    Bush Administration Denies Offering Mexico Immigration Deal In Exchange For Iraq Vote

    Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson suggested last week that the White House may be offering an amnesty deal to Mexico in return for supporting its position on Iraq. An article in the French daily Liberation claimed the Bush administration had offered a direct deal on immigration. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer denied any such suggestions, saying that President Bush "is not offering a quid pro quo" and that Mexico would judge the situation on its merits alone. U.S.-Mexico relations have been somewhat strained since September 11; in the months before the terrorist attacks, Mr. Bush and President Fox had been working on a deal to deliver amnesty to Mexicans working illegally in the United States. He did note, however, that the President is in favor of an immigration deal anyway, thus suggesting that should a deal happen after Mexico votes with the US, that the Administration can claim this to be just a coincidence.



    Mexico has one of the seats on the United Nations Security Council. The US is said to be working behind the scenes as much as possible in support of a new resolution that will pave the way for an American invasion of Iraq.



    Fox has been lukewarm to the US' talk of war with Iraq. "We support multilateral efforts to reach the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and for that nation to comply fully with the resolutions approved by the United Nations Security Council," Fox recently told a group of American and Mexican businessmen. He has said in the past that he favors a UN-led diplomatic approach to Iraq. Fox's position is consistent with the Mexican public's views. A recent poll in that country showed 83% opposing the US position.



    The following is the transcript from the White House press briefings on February 26th and 27th where Press Secretary Ari Fleischer addressed the controversy:



    "Q: Ari, in Mexico, the President will continue to call President Fox to pressure him to change his mind against -- and to vote in the Security Council? What Mexico can get from the United States if it votes yes for the resolution that was presented by this country?

    MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, this entire matter will be dealt with in a matter of diplomacy and logic and expressions of our position. And nations then will be in a position as sovereigns to evaluate that information. This is why the Security Council is set up with 10 members who rotate on to the Council. This is a moment for 10 nations that would not typically be on the Security Council to have their moment, as part of the international community's regimes to enforce peace and to fight proliferation.

    Q: But Mexico can get something from the United States, from the President --

    MR. FLEISCHER: This is a time -- no, the President is not offering quid pro quos. This is a time for nations to do what they estimate is the right thing to do to promote the peace.

    Q: Ari, just to follow up on Mexico. Is it true that the administration is willing to give Mexico some sort of immigration agreements like amnesty or guest worker program, to assure the Mexican vote, as the French press is pointing out today and is quoting, actually, two different diplomats from the State Department?

    MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's exactly as I indicated, that we have, on this issue, a matter of diplomacy and a matter of the merits. We ask each nation on the Security Council to weigh the merits and make a decision about war and peace. And if anybody thinks that there are nations like Mexico, whose vote could be bought on the basis of a trade issue or something else like that, I think you're giving -- doing grave injustice to the independence and the judgment of the leaders of other nations.

    Q: -- the French press is quoting actually two different diplomats from the United States State Department that -- they're highlighting that the United States is giving some sort of agreements or benefits to Colombia -- and other non-members of the Security Council --

    MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't seen the story. And you already have the answer, about what this will be decided on. But think about the implications of what you're saying. You're saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable. And that is not an acceptable proposition. (Laughter.)"

    From February 27th:



    "QUESTION: Does the administration view immigration reforms or other things that are on the binational agenda tied to their support in the U.N.?



    MR. FLEISCHER: The President has always viewed immigration reforms, such things as family unification, as an important priority for the United States.



    QUESTION: Is it tied to their support in the U.N.?



    MR. FLEISCHER: They are, in and of themselves, important and worth goals. And with or without Iraq, the President would be pushing them, as you know. He began his term pushing them, and he intends to continue to push them and hope the Congress will agree. This, at all times, would be good times for Congress to agree to family reunification

  2. #2
    Guest
    From: http://www.visalaw.com/03feb4/10feb403.html


    Bush Administration Denies Offering Mexico Immigration Deal In Exchange For Iraq Vote

    Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson suggested last week that the White House may be offering an amnesty deal to Mexico in return for supporting its position on Iraq. An article in the French daily Liberation claimed the Bush administration had offered a direct deal on immigration. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer denied any such suggestions, saying that President Bush "is not offering a quid pro quo" and that Mexico would judge the situation on its merits alone. U.S.-Mexico relations have been somewhat strained since September 11; in the months before the terrorist attacks, Mr. Bush and President Fox had been working on a deal to deliver amnesty to Mexicans working illegally in the United States. He did note, however, that the President is in favor of an immigration deal anyway, thus suggesting that should a deal happen after Mexico votes with the US, that the Administration can claim this to be just a coincidence.



    Mexico has one of the seats on the United Nations Security Council. The US is said to be working behind the scenes as much as possible in support of a new resolution that will pave the way for an American invasion of Iraq.



    Fox has been lukewarm to the US' talk of war with Iraq. "We support multilateral efforts to reach the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and for that nation to comply fully with the resolutions approved by the United Nations Security Council," Fox recently told a group of American and Mexican businessmen. He has said in the past that he favors a UN-led diplomatic approach to Iraq. Fox's position is consistent with the Mexican public's views. A recent poll in that country showed 83% opposing the US position.



    The following is the transcript from the White House press briefings on February 26th and 27th where Press Secretary Ari Fleischer addressed the controversy:



    "Q: Ari, in Mexico, the President will continue to call President Fox to pressure him to change his mind against -- and to vote in the Security Council? What Mexico can get from the United States if it votes yes for the resolution that was presented by this country?

    MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, this entire matter will be dealt with in a matter of diplomacy and logic and expressions of our position. And nations then will be in a position as sovereigns to evaluate that information. This is why the Security Council is set up with 10 members who rotate on to the Council. This is a moment for 10 nations that would not typically be on the Security Council to have their moment, as part of the international community's regimes to enforce peace and to fight proliferation.

    Q: But Mexico can get something from the United States, from the President --

    MR. FLEISCHER: This is a time -- no, the President is not offering quid pro quos. This is a time for nations to do what they estimate is the right thing to do to promote the peace.

    Q: Ari, just to follow up on Mexico. Is it true that the administration is willing to give Mexico some sort of immigration agreements like amnesty or guest worker program, to assure the Mexican vote, as the French press is pointing out today and is quoting, actually, two different diplomats from the State Department?

    MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's exactly as I indicated, that we have, on this issue, a matter of diplomacy and a matter of the merits. We ask each nation on the Security Council to weigh the merits and make a decision about war and peace. And if anybody thinks that there are nations like Mexico, whose vote could be bought on the basis of a trade issue or something else like that, I think you're giving -- doing grave injustice to the independence and the judgment of the leaders of other nations.

    Q: -- the French press is quoting actually two different diplomats from the United States State Department that -- they're highlighting that the United States is giving some sort of agreements or benefits to Colombia -- and other non-members of the Security Council --

    MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't seen the story. And you already have the answer, about what this will be decided on. But think about the implications of what you're saying. You're saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable. And that is not an acceptable proposition. (Laughter.)"

    From February 27th:



    "QUESTION: Does the administration view immigration reforms or other things that are on the binational agenda tied to their support in the U.N.?



    MR. FLEISCHER: The President has always viewed immigration reforms, such things as family unification, as an important priority for the United States.



    QUESTION: Is it tied to their support in the U.N.?



    MR. FLEISCHER: They are, in and of themselves, important and worth goals. And with or without Iraq, the President would be pushing them, as you know. He began his term pushing them, and he intends to continue to push them and hope the Congress will agree. This, at all times, would be good times for Congress to agree to family reunification

Similar Threads

  1. Racist Mexicans Don't Want Their Fellow Mexicans
    By federale86 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-05-2010, 09:10 PM
  2. An Olde Moron Says Mexicans Came First
    By federale86 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-23-2010, 09:56 AM
  3. I guess my immigrant adventures just began, huh??? :)
    By Tatianka in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 03:31 AM
  4. WHY DO MEXICANS AND OTHERS COME TO THE USA
    By E. in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 03-31-2004, 11:29 AM
  5. To Anti-Immigrants..tell me why..huh!
    By An_Immigrant in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-26-2003, 06:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: