[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 9, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6451-H6455]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   IMMIGRATION: THE POROUS NATURE OF OUR BORDERS AND THE DEVASTATING 
                     EFFECT THAT HAS ON OUR ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.

[[Page H6452]]

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak about a couple 
of topics, in particular, of course, the issue that is always of 
interest to me and I believe should be to our colleagues and to the 
American people, and that is, the issue of immigration, the porous 
nature of our borders and the very devastating effect that has had on 
the United States literally and figuratively.
  I want to preface my remarks this evening Mr. Speaker with some 
observations that I had while I was waiting to address the House.
  One of the previous hours was taken by the members of the Hispanic 
Caucus, and they spent their hour dutifully recounting the notable 
achievements of Hispanic Americans in the United States, both in the 
military and in other areas; and as I say, dutifully, and it is 
appropriate that those observations were made and those accomplishments 
were lauded.
  As I listened to them, it struck me just how peculiar it is to have 
such a thing in this Congress. Certainly I think it is not unique here. 
There are probably State legislatures around the country that probably 
have a similar entity as a Hispanic caucus. That is a unique thing 
here, of course, and interesting from a variety of different 
standpoints. But it brings to mind the problem we are having in this 
country with trying to integrate into our society all peoples of 
various ethnic origins.
  There is to some extent a desire on the part of many people to 
integrate into our society and do so as quickly as possible as they get 
here, newly arrived individuals, new immigrants to the American scene, 
and that is as it has been since the inception of the country. Most 
people coming into the United States are coming here for reasons that 
help them adjust to the American scene by disassociating themselves 
with their past and integrating themselves into the American mosaic.
  I think to a large extent, although it is understandable, as I say, 
for individuals to form themselves up into organizations to reflect 
relatively narrow points of view and attitudes, it is peculiar, I 
think, to have organizations like that in this body and in other 
legislative groups around the country, and this all came home to me 
recently in Denver, when I was asked to speak to a group called the 
Hispanic Human Resources Association.
  These are individuals who work in companies throughout the State of 
Colorado in the capacity as human resource development people. It was 
kind of intriguing to me when I first got their offer that there was 
such an organization, first of all, Hispanic human resource 
administrators. I mean, I think to myself, well, why Hispanic human 
resource administrators? Why not Greek human resource, whatever, and of 
course, I wanted to go and speak to them.
  They wanted to talk to me about my position on immigration, a 
position, of course, which is very, very unpopular among a number of 
Hispanic organizations, not so unpopular among many Hispanic 
individuals who live here in the United States, who themselves see the 
problems that are created as a result of massive immigration, legal and 
illegal, but many organizations, of course LARASA and others, who 
attack my position quite vehemently.
  They and this group to a large extent reflected that point of view, 
but I wanted to go and I wanted to debate that point in front of them, 
and I was there with a representative of another Member of this body, 
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). And although she could not 
be there that night, she sent a representative, and he and I were the 
focal point of the evening discussion.
  At the conclusion of our discussions, a gentleman in the back of the 
room stood up and he was Hispanic. He said to me that he was concerned 
about the fact that, as he pointed up to the dais where we were 
sitting, that he and the other Hispanics in the audience were not 
represented by the people at the dais.

                              {time}  2130

  In other words, not by me or by the representative from the office of 
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). And he was very annoyed by 
that. And he indicated that that was really his problem; that that was 
a major problem that he has generally with American society, with his 
particular situation in living in Denver, as I assume he did.
  And I was extremely interested in that observation because it goes to 
what I am talking about here tonight in terms of this Hispanic Caucus 
that exists in the body. I said to him, I am really intrigued by what 
you say, because what you have suggested is that because I am not 
Hispanic nor is my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette), I cannot represent you and neither can she for only that 
reason; not because we may not see eye to eye on the issue of taxation 
or Social Security reform or the degree of support for the military or 
any of the wide variety of issues that confront us all on this floor 
day after day after day. No, not for any of those reasons did he feel 
that he is not represented and could not be represented by either my 
colleague or myself. He felt that he could not be represented because 
neither of us, neither my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado, nor 
I, is Hispanic.
  That was really a fascinating thing in a way, because this is really 
a problem in our society, Mr. Speaker, I believe, this balkanization of 
America, this assumption that in order for us to be truly 
``represented'' in any body, any legislative body, it can only be 
someone of our ethnic background. So I said to him, do you know what 
that means, sir? That means if you are telling me I cannot represent 
your interests, and I may very well not represent your point of view on 
a wide variety of issues, because I assume you are a very liberal, sort 
of maybe a Democrat-leaning individual and I am a conservative 
Republican, so you are probably right that I do not represent your 
political point of view, I will give you that. But it is not because I 
am Italian; it is because I simply do not agree with your issues. But 
you are also suggesting that my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), does not represent your point of view, even 
though I will bet you anything that on every single one of your issues, 
everything that you can talk about, everything that you can possibly 
come up with as a public policy issue, I will bet you that she agrees 
with you. But you do not think that is good enough; that she agrees 
with you on every single public policy issue. You say she has to be 
Hispanic to represent you. Well, of course, what that means is that you 
cannot represent me. You could never represent me; not because you do 
not believe what I believe, but because you are Hispanic and I am 
Italian.
  I mean does that make sense to anybody here? Do we really believe 
that that is the way we ought to determine who gets elected to office, 
based solely on their ethnic background? And yet that is what this is 
all about. We draw lines. We are in the process now around the country 
of redrawing district lines for the Congress of the United States. And, 
interestingly, we continue to think about and courts continue to 
adjudicate lines drawn to protect specific minority groups so that 
minority groups, black and Hispanic, can have their representation 
here. But, of course, that begs the question, does the color of our 
skin make us incapable of responding to the needs and desires and 
wishes and attitudes of our constituency, if it is not the same color 
as the majority of the people who live there in that particular 
district?
  This is a very dangerous thing, Mr. Speaker. And I do not blame my 
colleagues for getting up here tonight and extolling the virtues of 
Hispanic Americans. They are wonderful people, and I certainly join 
them in their praise of the accomplishments of many people. But in a 
way it almost makes you wonder why we have to say it in that way. Why 
do we have to say these are the accomplishments of Hispanic Americans? 
Is it not just the fact these people did marvelous things and they are 
Americans? Is that not what we should really be giving them credit for, 
in order to not create and continue this divide that simply, I think, 
personally, makes it very difficult for America to succeed in its goal 
of a united States of America, of a united people of America?
  I see banners and signs all over. I am sure my colleagues have seen 
them, too, Mr. Speaker. I saw them on U.S. 66 coming from the airport, 
great big

[[Page H6453]]

hand-painted banners people had hung over the overpass and they said 
``United We Stand.'' Let us be united. That was kind of the underlying 
theme of all of these banners I saw; that we were united as a people 
against the threat of international terrorism. That is exactly what we 
have to be. There is no two ways about it. We must be united in order 
to confront this threat and to be successful in that confrontation.
  It does not help us, I think, in our quest to be united to constantly 
be reminded of our differences, again be they ethnic or religious or 
anything else. It is problematic from that standpoint; it is 
detrimental to American interests. And I worry about the degree to 
which this affects our culture, and I worry about the fact that it has 
an impact certainly on this body and it has an impact throughout the 
country. Again, what an odd thing, in a way.

  I wonder what the founders would say, Mr. Speaker. I would be 
fascinated to know what the founders of the Nation would have said if 
during their deliberations on the Constitution of the United States and 
the Declaration of Independence someone were to have suggested to them 
that it would be important to add a provision in the Constitution that 
assured that every ethnic group that one could possibly identify in the 
United States should have a special area in the country where they are 
highly populated, have that special area cut out and have a 
representative of that ethnic group especially for them. I wonder what 
they would have said about that. I wonder if they would have suggested 
that that was ``a good idea'' for American democracy. I do not think 
so.
  As I say, I mentioned to that gentleman that night that it was wrong, 
I believe. And by the way he responded and he said, are you telling me 
you really think we should not have separate groups to represent our 
points? I said, you are right, if what you are telling me is that your 
point of view needs to be represented by someone of a particular ethnic 
background. Then I am telling you I am opposed to that. I am totally 
opposed to that. I am Italian American, 100 percent Italian American; 
but I will tell you this, I would no more cast my vote for another 
Italian American simply because he or she was Italian than I would cast 
a vote blindly. Because it depends on what they think, what they 
believe, who they are politically. That is how I would vote.
  I know people in the State of Colorado for whom I have voted, Lilly 
Nunez, who is a lady I have known for 25 years, and who I nominated for 
national committee woman from Colorado; Bob Martinez, who I supported 
for national committee man. I did so not because either one of those 
two people are Hispanic, but because they were Republicans and they 
were the kind of Republicans that I wanted to see in power, in place. 
They were conservatives. And that is the only thing that really matters 
to me. It is not their ethnic background.
  But if I were to live by the dictates of the folks who come in here 
and form these caucuses and develop these groups and keep trying to 
divide America into these various balkanized States, then I would say, 
no, I could not possibly, evenly though I know Joe and Lilly Nunez very 
well, and I believe that they are solid Republicans, I could not vote 
for them because, gee whiz, they are Hispanic and they could not really 
represent my interests. That is idiotic. But that is the point of view 
that these organizations want us to proceed upon, and they go into 
court throughout the Nation and try to get courts to adjudicate this 
redistricting issue on their behalf so that they will cut up districts 
in order to have representation of a specific ethnic group. And I think 
that is abhorrent.
  I was struck by that, as I say, as I was listening to the debate 
tonight. Once again, please do not misunderstand me or misconstrue what 
I am stating here tonight. I absolutely agree with and lend my voice to 
the adulation for all of the accomplishments of the Hispanic 
individuals they mentioned. The Americans they mentioned. The 
Americans. No hyphen. The Americans. They did extraordinary things, the 
38 members they identified; winning the congressional medal of honor. I 
say God bless every single one of them. The Nobel prize, and the 
various other things they were talking about. God bless every single 
one of those people for what they did for America as Americans. And 
that is the way they should be remembered.
  Now, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are confronted by an 
incredible dilemma this evening on the floor of this House and as a 
Congress of the United States, and that is how to construct the most 
powerful alliance that we can possibly think of in order to confront 
the terrorists who have perpetrated such heinous acts on the United 
States on September 11. The spawn of evil is the way I identify these 
people.
  It seems to me that there are some interesting things that we 
confront in that particular endeavor; and one is, as I say, trying to 
build a coalition of countries who will help us in a variety of ways: 
Contributing armed forces, contributing financial support, agreeing to 
do something within their own financial systems to stop money from 
being transferred among and between these organizations, share with us 
intelligence information, help us maintain some sort of integrity on 
our borders. All of these things are the signs of what a friend would 
do.
  It is interesting to me, and I think it elucidates the problem that 
we are having around the world when we talk about one particular 
``friend'' of the United States and what they are doing for us, and 
that ``friend,'' and I put that in quotes again, is Mexico. Mr. 
Speaker, after September 11, literally scores of nations immediately 
rushed to our support, promised various degrees of help and support. 
But one was conspicuous by its absence, one of our friends. One of our 
neighbors was conspicuous by its absence in support for our endeavors, 
and that, of course, was the country of Mexico.

                              {time}  2145

  Now, if my friends in the Hispanic Caucus here tonight really want to 
do something for the United States, then let me make a suggestion to 
them because they have chosen again to form themselves up into this 
specific sort of ethnic group. Let me suggest to them that this is a 
very positive role that group can play. Instead of trying to divide 
America, separate America, it seems to me that they could make a plea 
to the Mexican Government and to Vicente Fox.
  On behalf of the Hispanic Caucus in the Congress of the United 
States, it would have been heartwarming to hear them say, President 
Fox, please give the United States the support we need in order to 
defend ourselves against these terrorists. Please do not hold back any 
more. Please try to overcome the objections within your own government, 
which have been noted in the paper here several times, and be 
forthcoming and bold in your willingness to help the United States.
  This is an article which appeared in the Washington Post on September 
26. Mexico City, September 26, President Vicente Fox fighting charges 
that he has been lukewarm in reacting to terrorist attacks in New York 
and Washington. He came to the United States and sort of wanted to do 
some damage control. Fox's comments in the speech Tuesday followed a 
period of uncharacteristic quiet from the usually loquacious Mexican 
leader who had made friendly relations with Washington a trademark of 
his 10-month old administration. After calling President Bush and 
offering public condolences after the attacks, Fox seemed to focus on 
domestic Mexican issues, at least in public. And despite months of 
globe trotting and talking about how Mexico wants a greater role in 
foreign affairs, the article goes on to say, there was no trip to the 
rubble of the World Trade Center, no photo op of the dos amigos at the 
White House.
  In response, some Mexicans called Bush and Fox distant friends. An 
editorial in London's Economist magazine asked whether Fox was a 
``fair-weather friend.''
  Since the attacks, it says, Fox has been in an uncomfortable spot. 
Voices from the Mexican Congress, intellectuals and the public have 
long made it difficult for the Mexican Government to be seen as too 
supportive of the United States. Mexico has a tradition of avoiding 
getting swept in the U.S. policies and refusing to intervene in foreign 
conflicts. Nationalism often has been defined as anti-Americanism,

[[Page H6454]]

anti-Americanism from our neighbor to the south. Refusal to provide the 
support that we should expect from our neighbors and friends. Refusal 
to provide the support that one would expect from a country for which 
the word trust was used over and over and over again during President 
Fox's visit here to the United States. He must have used that 10 times 
during his speech to this body. We need to trust one another he said, 
over and over again.
  Well, President Fox, if the Hispanic Caucus will not bring this to 
your attention, then let me. If you want to develop that trust that you 
ask for, there are things we can do. You can help us first of all by 
securing our border, our mutual border, our common border. Help us in 
defending that border against incursions. Help us in stopping the 
traffic of illegal aliens across that border, whatever nationality, 
wherever they come from.
  Mr. Fox, you recognize the problem, I would say to him, Mr. Speaker. 
You recognize the problem in your own country, where you have not too 
long ago ordered the military, the Mexican military, to go down and 
defend the border between Mexico and Guatemala from incursions of 
Guatemalan immigrants whom you identified as people that had to be kept 
out because of the problem they caused in Mexico.
  Now, in doing that, President Fox, I would say, I do not challenge 
you. You make the decisions that are necessary for the well-being of 
your country. So then help us, I would ask him, help us in doing 
exactly the same thing on your northern border. Of course, he is 
constrained from doing that, Mr. Speaker, because the politics inside 
Mexico are such that he could probably never get away with such a 
statement.
  The article in the Post goes on to say, Carlos Fuentes, Mexico's best 
known novelist, also weighed in noting his concern that the declared 
U.S. war against ``an enemy without a face,'' could bring civilian 
casualties. Fuentes reminded Mexico of its independence from its 
powerful neighbor, saying in widely published comments, quote, ``we are 
partners of the United States, not their hangers-on.''
  The newspaper Reforma drew a scorecard. This is fascinating, Mr. 
Speaker; and I really hope our colleagues pay close attention to this. 
This is a Mexican newspaper called Reforma. It drew a scorecard of how 
supportive 15 countries have been for Bush. Mexico came in second from 
last, tied with China, slightly above Iraq and Cuba. The rankings were 
based on 10 signs of solidarity such as holding a national moment of 
silence, visiting Bush, granting permission for the use of military 
bases or air space.

  We have refused so far to make a public issue of this lack of 
response on the part of our southern neighbors because I think we do 
not want to embarrass them or ourselves. I think the President has not 
asked President Fox for overt shows of support, signs of support, 
because he knows he cannot get it from President Fox. He knows that the 
Mexican people do not support it.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would very much have appreciated hearing tonight 
from the Hispanic Caucus on the floor of this Congress how they were 
going to deal with this issue, again, since they choose to form 
themselves up in that kind of an organization, it is fair for me to 
ask. Why will they not talk to the President of Mexico and your 
colleagues down in the Mexican Congress and ask them to provide the 
same sort of support to the United States that Canada, Brazil, 
Argentina, Uruguay have provided?
  Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the countries I have just noted 
were listed in the paper today. As I was flying in, there was a map of 
the world and they were listing the countries of the Americas that had 
helped the United States. Canada, of course, add to that list. And the 
ones I just mentioned, those were identified as being, to the best of 
my recollection, those were identified as being the countries in the 
Americas that had come forth and helped us in our time of need. One 
was, again, conspicuous by its absence, Mr. Speaker. Where was Mexico? 
Where is Mexico in this dispute?
  Here are excerpts from Mexican newspapers. Many Mexican newspapers 
reacted to the first strikes by the United States and England against 
Afghanistan by criticizing U.S. President George Bush and questioning 
Mexico's governmental support. Daily La Jornada printed an editorial 
saying that the attack was ``not about justice or international law. It 
was a unilateral and arbitrary act of revenge.''
  An editorial called the act ``Bush's holy war'' and said it is the 
start of a war in which Mexico has no moral, political, or military 
reason to participate. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. This is the 
editorial in La Jornada, a daily in Mexico. It is the start of a war in 
which Mexico has no moral, political or military reason to participate.
  The murder of 6,000 innocent people in the Trade Towers and the 
planes that were used as missiles does not create a moral dilemma for 
Mexico according to this. Well, what in the name of God would if that 
does not do it?
  The newspaper Excelsior said, ``Mexico should not distance itself 
from its political tradition of rejecting war to resolve even the most 
difficult international controversies.'' The Daily added that Vicente 
Fox's government ``voiced its support of the actions of the U.S. and 
Great Britain.'' Hopefully, it said, ``that was not an effort to 
appease the Bush Government.'' The Bush Government.
  La Cronica de Hoy printed in its editorial page, quote, ``They will 
start two wars. One of the U.S. against the Taliban and one based on 
threats. In the first missiles are launched at targets that fail to 
feel the power and courage of the most powerful Nation.''
  An editorial in that La Jornada was the strongest yet, saying it is 
not necessary to go back decades to see the moral similarity between 
the U.S. Government and its current enemy at the moment, covert acts of 
censorship and lies.
  This paper in Mexico compares the United States with its current 
enemy. We, I guess according to this paper, are similar to the Taliban, 
similar to the bin Laden organization, al-Qaeda.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on here with these quotes from Mexican 
newspapers. Suffice it to say that our friend in the south is not 
showing us that degree of trust that was called for by its President 
when he was here. Nor, Mr. Speaker, should we extend any trust under 
these conditions.
  Street vendors, I am told, in Mexico are selling T-shirts that say 
essentially in Spanish, ``Go Taliban.'' I am told that the sales are 
brisk.
  For night after night I have come on this floor, Mr. Speaker, and I 
have talked about my concerns with massive immigration; and I continue 
to raise those concerns tonight because I believe that this is a 
significant problem for the United States, that a country to our south 
that contributes the greatest bulk of the immigration to the number of 
immigrants to the United States with this kind of attitude, this is not 
really all that healthy for the United States. We find ourselves in a 
difficult position if these are the attitudes that these people bring 
with them. I do not know that they are.
  My concern is that they may be. And I am also concerned about simply 
the numbers. It is the massive numbers coming from any country. In this 
case it is Mexico. But the massive numbers make it very difficult for 
integration to occur. It only exacerbates the problem of the divisive 
nature of these debates. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, let us go ahead 
and talk about the political reality of massive immigration.
  One reason we have it, one reason we cannot stop it, one reason why 
it is so hard to get people to address it is because there are 
political ramifications to it. One party enjoys a great benefit as a 
result of massive immigration. People become citizens in the United 
States, or even if they do not, many of them still vote illegally.
  We have cases of that popping up all over. Just recently one of the 
groups of terrorists or it is one in the group of terrorists had 
actually voted in United States elections twice and was not a citizen, 
needless to say. So it is not hard for voter fraud to occur. We do not 
know the extent to which it occurs, but I think it is significant.
  At any rate, people come here and are attracted to one particular 
party who promises, more than anything else, government largess; and 
that is one reason why we cannot stop immigration, legal or illegal.

                              {time}  2200

  I hate to say it, Mr. Speaker, but I believe with all my heart that 
we have

[[Page H6455]]

a serious problem as a result of porous borders and our unwillingness 
or inability or a lack of desire to actually create borders with 
integrity.
  I have said this before, and I will say it again. If, God forbid, 
another event were to occur in this country of the nature of the 
September 11 events and if those events were perpetrated by people who 
came across our borders illegally, snuck into the United States, or 
were here on visas that were extended, overextended, or were here on 
visas that were violated because they were not doing what they were 
supposed to do or were here because we let them in because even though 
they have been associated with terrorist organizations, right now, Mr. 
Speaker, that by law, by a law we have, that is not enough to keep them 
out. If they put down on a piece of paper, yes, I am a member of al 
Qaeda, that does not mean we could keep them out right now. We asked 
for the ability to do that. The administration sent a bill to the 
Committee on the Judiciary to ask for the ability to do just that, and 
it was turned down, it was watered down in order to get bipartisan 
support.
  So we have this problem. We have open borders, essentially. We have 
right now almost a quarter of a million people living in the United 
States who have gone through the system and been found guilty of 
violating their visa, or guilty of some law, the violation of an 
American law, and they were ordered to be deported, Mr. Speaker, but 
they are still here. A quarter of a million people have been ordered 
deported but are simply roaming the country because the INS chooses not 
to go after them. I will say this again, that if anything else happens 
and it is the same sort of situation, somebody else coming into this 
country and doing that and we choose to do nothing about securing our 
borders, not only are we irresponsible in this body but we are 
culpable.
  We look to do everything we can. We go to country after country 
asking for support. We look to cut off their money supply. We look to 
destroy their infrastructure. We look to every single way there is to 
try and stop terrorists from perpetrating heinous acts, their acts of 
hatred on this country, but we are afraid to do one thing. We are 
afraid to actually begin to control our own borders, because there is a 
political problem here, a political issue. I think that is despicable. 
No one should care about how these people will eventually vote. No one 
should care about whose party would be more benefited by the massive 
numbers of people coming across our borders. What we should care about 
is the safety of the Americans here of every race, religion, creed, 
color. We should be concerned about every single Hispanic American 
here, citizen, every single black American, every Hindu, Muslim, 
whatever, I do not care what.
  That is our main concern, Mr. Speaker. It is not some political need 
to keep these borders open that we should be concerned about. And if 
that concern overrides our major responsibility as a country, as a 
Federal Government, then I say shame on us, because our responsibility 
is here clear. The Federal Government has one responsibility, primary 
responsibility. It is more important than health and human services, it 
is more important than the Department of Education, the Department of 
Interior, the Department of Transportation. It is more important than 
all of that. It is to protect the lives and property of the people in 
this country. That is it. That is our main goal. Everything else pales 
in comparison. If we refuse to take that one step that would help in 
that direction, and I am not suggesting for a moment that even if we 
seal our borders, we would be absolutely able to be sure, positively, 
undeniably we will never have another attack of this nature, certainly 
I cannot say that, but I can say this, we will lessen the chance. And I 
will dare anyone, I challenge anyone to stand up and explain to me how 
we can possibly keep open borders under these circumstances. I just 
simply do not understand it. But we will do it, Mr. Speaker, unless the 
people of this Nation rise up in a loud voice and let their 
representatives know that they are concerned, more concerned even than 
the political problem of closing down the border, the political 
ramifications of such a thing.
  Again I ask my friends in the Hispanic Caucus, please send a message 
to our friends, if they are friends, in Mexico. We need their help. It 
is not just our Nation we are trying to protect. It is civilization. It 
is not just our morality that we are trying to defend, it is the 
morality of civilized men and women all over the world. And we need 
their help. The sign of a friend would be to say, we put aside all 
these regional differences now, we know that there is something bigger, 
more dangerous that affects us all, and we will help you secure your 
border, America, and we will do something else: If the Arab nations 
that control OPEC, if they attempt to blackmail the United States again 
by raising the cost of oil, we will sell you oil from our state-owned 
oil company at lower prices, and we will look to see everything we can 
do in terms of intelligence gathering to help you in your efforts to 
quash al Qaeda and any of the other organizations that are designed for 
the purpose of bringing death and destruction to the United States and 
the Western hemisphere and civilization.
  Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil. Can their efforts be any more in common 
with ours than Mexico? But they understood that there is a moral 
dimension to this that extends all the way through and across their 
borders. How could we not expect the same from our, quote, trusted 
neighbor in the South? It is not just our safety that I plead for their 
support on, it is their own. It is civilization itself that is 
threatened, make no bones about this. This is not just a war between 
the United States and Osama bin Laden, or al Qaeda or any of the other 
various individual terrorist groups. This is a war about whether 
civilization as we know it, where free thought and individual freedom 
reign, will be overtaken by the darkness of a barbaric time.
  So it is in your interest, Mexico, not just ours, to help in this 
endeavor. Until that happens, I do not believe we can call you a 
trusted friend.

                          ____________________