Trump’s Not Yet President, But Nieto Is Saying, ‘Si Se Puede’


By ilana mercer

FOLLOWING Donald J. Trump’s sublime immigration address, critics—essentially all Big, Crooked Media—charged that Trump’s Arizona speech represented a sharp departure from the tone he took earlier that day, with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. A reversal, if you will.

Nonsense. With President Nieto, Donald Trump was at once patriotic, forceful and diplomatic.

In close to two decades of analyzing American politics, I’ve yet to hear an American leader address his Mexican counterpart as forcefully as Mr. Trump addressed President Nieto. Trump came across as a man-of-the world, to whom interfacing with foreign dignitaries was second nature.

It’s always been the case that Americans in power collude with Mexicans in power to bully and manipulate a powerless American People into accepting the unacceptable: The imperative to welcome torrents of unskilled illegal aliens, at an incalculable cost to the safety of America’s communities, the solvency of its public institutions, and the sustainability of the environment.

Strolling through the ancient Mayan and Toltec ruins with President Vincente Fox, in 2006, George W. Bush was not talking-up American interests. He was plotting amnesty with an unholy trinity comprised of John McCain, Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter. Sly Fox was the silent partner.

Most memorably, Bush, who would wrestle a crocodile for a criminal alien, went on to indict and viciously prosecute two brave border-patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. For shooting a drug dealer in the derriere—in the process of defending their countrymen—Bush unleashed his bloodhound, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, on the two patrolmen and jailed them.

So what a pleasant surprise it was for this long-time political observer to witness a Mexican president, clearly cowed by The Donald, make no mention of America’s bogus obligation to take in Mexico’s tired, poor, huddled masses yearning for U.S. welfare.

If President Nieto harbored the urge to make manipulative appeals to American “permanent values,” so as to lighten his political load—there was no evidence of it. It’s fair to infer that on that occasion, a show of unparalleled strength and patriotism—Mr. Trump’s—extinguished the bad habit. The biblical proverb (generously paraphrased) worked:

Act like a fearless lion before an adversary, and the adversary will retreat.

Naturally, the network nits failed to notice just how reverential and conciliatory Nieto was. He expressed hope that differences would be bridged and that the ideas of freedom and prosperity would form that bridge. Indeed, a surprisingly respectful President Nieto voiced his wish to work constructively with the next president of the United States. There would be challenges to meet and opportunities to realize, but these would be met by the two nations as friends, neighbors and strategic partners.

And lo—again, it swooshed by CNN dimwits—Nieto even stipulated his willingness to review policies that had not worked and allay attendant misunderstandings. Here was an indication Mexico was no longer negotiating from the old manipulative position of strength, facilitated by America’s traitor class. For Nieto now faced a different kind of American leader, one who declared he was looking out for the forgotten American masses.

For the first time in a long time we heard how important the U.S. was to Mexico—yes, show us some love—and not only as a willing taker of those hungry, huddled, Mexican masses. While Nieto spoke openly about keeping the hemisphere competitive, he was willing to improve trade agreements to benefit workers of both countries. When President Nieto did cop to some disagreement with the Republican candidate, he nevertheless emphasized a willingness to find common ground.

As for the sui generis Trump: He went straight to the nub of the matter. He loves the United States very much and wants to ensure its people are well-protected. Yet poignantly did Trump acknowledge President Nieto’s fellow-feeling toward his people. The Republican standing for president then merged the aspirations of both leaders, by emphasizing their shared quest to keep “the hemisphere” prosperous, safe and free.

At the same time, Trump was uncompromising about NAFTA. He called for reciprocal trade and denied that the trade deal (really “a mercantilist, centrally planned, maze of regulations”) had benefited Americans at all.

As if to herald his immigration speech, later that day, Trump then enumerated five shared goals. They are (not in the order presented):

  1. End illegal immigration, not just between Mexico and the U.S., but from Central and South America. It adversely impacts both Mexico and the U.S. For those embarking on the dangerous odyssey, it’s a humanitarian disaster.
  2. Dismantle the drug cartels, jointly, and end their free movement across the Southern border.
  3. Improve NAFTA to reflect today’s realities, while keeping “our hemisphere” competitive and prosperous, with the aim of improving pay standards and working conditions within.
  4. Keep manufacturing capabilities in “our hemisphere.” Libertarian will disagree with Trump on this matter, but, as I pointed out in “A Vacation from Reality” (2006), prosperity in one’s own country makes the individual less likely to relocate in search of better economic prospects.

Ultimately, as long as the U.S. remains a relatively high-wage area, with a generous, tax-funded welfare system—it will experience migratory pressure from low-wage Mexico. As explained in “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016), “migratory pressure flows from low-wage to high-wage regions; from the Third World to the First World.”

Alas, “migratory equilibrium will be reached once First World becomes Third World.” This Trump seeks to forestall with his most important stipulation:

  1. “Having a secure border is a sovereign right. The right of either country to build a physical barrier or wall” to stem the tide of illegal migration, weapons and drugs is incontestable and must be recognized.
Advertisements

One comment

  • My question about all this is why would Trump bother to meet with the Mexican government at all? Does he need their permission or acquiesce, or in some way their approval, to enact the necessary measures. The wall he proposes to build will be on American soil. No permission is needed from the Mexican government.

    My comments on the five points in the communique:

    [quote]”1. End illegal immigration, not just between Mexico and the U.S., but from Central and South America. It adversely impacts both Mexico and the U.S. For those embarking on the dangerous odyssey, it’s a humanitarian disaster.”[unquote]

    Maybe what they mean is end mass illegal immigration, which is possible, with a wall and other border controls. It would need to be some wall, though.

    [quote]”2. Dismantle the drug cartels, jointly, and end their free movement across the Southern border.”[unquote]

    I think to assess the practicality of this, we would need to factor in the wall itself. A border wall resembling the old Inner German Border infrastructure, stretching the full, 1,989 miles, would assist interdiction immeasurably. But it has its limitations – couldn’t the drug traffickers just fly over the border, or even throw packages over, as happens in prisons?

    [quote]”3. Improve NAFTA to reflect today’s realities, while keeping “our hemisphere” competitive and prosperous, with the aim of improving pay standards and working conditions within.”[unquote]

    I’m hoping, for the sake of Americans, that this is Trump’s way of saying he is going to get rid of NAFTA, but I doubt it. On the really important issues – borders/immigration, NAFTA and U.S. foreign policy, I think Trump will be an incrementalist rather than a radical.

    [quote]”4. Keep manufacturing capabilities in “our hemisphere.” Libertarian will disagree with Trump on this matter, but, as I pointed out in “A Vacation from Reality” (2006), prosperity in one’s own country makes the individual less likely to relocate in search of better economic prospects.”[unquote]

    This and 3 above are at least inconsistent with what Trump has been telling blue collar white Americans in the post-industrial hinterlands. “In our hemisphere” is not necessarily the same as “in America”. I think a charitable assessment would be that Trump is conflicted – he likes NAFTA and likes low-skilled service sector immigrants, as they’re good for business, but he also wants to “make American great again”. Well he can’t have both.

    [quote]“Having a secure border is a sovereign right. The right of either country to build a physical barrier or wall” to stem the tide of illegal migration, weapons and drugs is incontestable and must be recognized.”[unquote]

    Why should it be recognised? Why not just go ahead and do it?

    I was watching a speech by Trump the other day in which he ranted on about Iran like a neoconservative. I see no essential differences between Trump and Hillary. It could be just down to Realpolitik on the part of Trump, or it could be that Trump lives up to his name and is just full of hot air.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s