Propagandist And Traitor: NYT`s Damien Cave And State`s Edward McKeon

Last week, the
New York Times
aggressively splashed a reportorial by Damien Cave (message
him on Twitter
),

Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allure of Going North

(July 6, 2011). Its propaganda purpose was crudely apparent,
as VDARE.com`s
Brenda
Walker
has

pointed out
: 
See! There`s no need to worry about illegal immigration!! So let`s give
amnesty to all those Undocumented Democrats
Immigrants!!!



As usual
, however, when read carefully, Cave`s article
undercuts the

conventional wisdom
and vindicates
VDARE.com`s
long-standing analysis.

Note that, while trumpeting an alleged
decline in the flow
of Mexican illegal immigrants, Cave admits in a throwaway
line that the stock
of Mexican illegals in the U.S. has not diminished (or, as
he characteristically puts it, there has been
“no overall increase
in the illegal Mexican population”
). This of course is
the key point—economically, because of the stock`s impact on
American wages and employment; politically, because this
stock will tend steadily to

Mexicanize America
, even without an amnesty, unless it
is systematically countered through Birthright Citizenship
reform and attrition through enforcement and deportation.

Cave
begins his flow flimflam:

"The extraordinary
Mexican migration that delivered millions of illegal
immigrants to the United States over the past 30 years has
sputtered to a trickle, and research points to a surprising
cause: unheralded changes in Mexico that have made staying
home more attractive."


Well, that may be surprising to the
NYT, which (funny
thing) has

walled itself into an intellectual ghetto
,

demonizing immigration reform patriots
with particular
virulence, since it was

bailed out
in 2009 by Mexican oligarch
Carlos
Slim
, the world`s richest man. (He makes billions



by monopolizing telephone calls
from America back home
to Mexico).

But it`s
not surprising to me or to VDARE.com readers.

It turns
out that—what do you know? Mexico is
not on the verge
of starvation—as politicians and the press always imply when
rationalizing illegal immigration. (In fact, although Cave
doesn`t mention this, Mexico might be the

second-most obese country
in the world, trailing only

the U.S.)

So the
“humanitarian”
rationale for illegal immigration from Mexico simply makes
no sense. For example, while Americans enjoyed 12.7 more
years of life expectancy than Mexicans in 1960, that gap had
closed to merely 3.4 years by 1995 

In fact, Japan`s life expectancy exceeds
America`s by more than America`s exceeds Mexico`s. But that
doesn`t
give Americans
the right to

invade Japan
.

Indeed, Mexico has never been terribly
poor by global standards. As I

pointed out
on VDARE.com exactly six years ago (July 10,
2005):

“In

reality
, almost five billion people (4,976 million to be
precise) live in countries where the average per capita
gross domestic product is lower than Mexico`s mean …”

Mexico is not a poor country by nature. It
is blessed with

minerals
, sunshine, moderate temperatures due to
altitude,
long coastlines
, and a

1,952 mile border
with the United States.

But it has been

debauched
for
generations
by Mexican oligarchs—like
Señor Slim.

Even in a typical MSM echo-chamber
response to Cave`s article,
Time Magazine
blogger Tim Padgett had to concede:

“A few years ago,
while I was visiting Mexico City, a Mexican colleague
surprisingly told me, `When you go back to the U.S., tell
them to build the damn wall.` His point: Mexicans like him
were tired of watching their political and business leaders
use illegal immigration as a social safety valve against
their corruption and negligence. Taking it away would force
them to make Mexico a fairer country …”


[
Why
the NYT`s Immigration Report Is A Welcome Antidote to the
U.S. Debate
,


July 7 2011]


Again, this will not be at all surprising to VDARE.com`s
Allan Wall, who has made this point many times (see



Does
Emigration Really Help Mexico?

and  
Memo
From Mexico: Stop Death In The Desert—Build The Border Wall!

)


Maybe Padgett should read VDARE.com! (
Email
him
).

Nor, as we find out by reading between the
lines of Cave`s NYT
article, have Mexicans been sneaking across the border
because of their deep admiration for the

propositions
of

Thomas Jefferson
and their hunger to be true Americans.
Affection for the United States is simply not on display in
the quotes Cave that relays.



Mexicans
don`t
really like America.

They`ve just been

coming here for the money
. They are happier, all else
being equal, in Mexico with their families. And as Mexico
becomes slightly richer (and America becomes a lot poorer),
they`d be pleased to say
“Adios, Americanos.”

One key
question: has illegal immigration from Mexico indeed fallen
since the cliffhanger rejections by patriots of the elites`
amnesty drives in 2001, 2004, 2006 and 2007 and the popping
of the Housing Bubble?

I can`t
imagine that it hasn`t. But, unfortunately, we don`t have
terribly strong evidence either way. For example, Cave
writes:

“The Mexican census
recently discovered four million more people in Mexico than
had been projected, which officials attributed to a sharp
decline in emigration.”

This is fascinating. Taken at face value,
this would suggest that a net of four million illegal aliens
may have, in effect, self-deported—“attrited”
is the technical term—without the oft-predicted humanitarian
catastrophe…or without anybody even much noticing. In fact,
according to Cave, life is better in Mexico today than
before the missing four million turned up.

However, we just can`t take that four
million number at face value. The corresponding 2010 Census
in America certainly didn`t notice four million missing
Hispanics. Instead, the

Hispanic population broke the 50 million barrier,
up 43
percent from 2000. Most demographers thought the number of
Mexicans found in the U.S. came in at the high end of their
expectations.

So what
other explanation could there be?

Well, maybe the fertility rate in Mexico
hasn`t really dropped as low as the Mexican government
reports. Or maybe the

Mexican government has an agenda
(shocking as this may
be to imagine) and its statistics aren`t wholly unbiased.

Or
maybe, much like the American government, the Mexican
government really just doesn`t have a clue what`s going on.

Who
knows?

We
especially don`t have conclusive proof of how to allocate
credit for this presumed reduction in illegal immigration,
even though Cave tries to sound confident:

"A growing body of
evidence suggests that a mix of developments—expanding
economic and educational opportunities, rising border crime
and shrinking families—are suppressing illegal traffic as
much as economic slowdowns or immigrant crackdowns in the
United States."

This matters, because how to divvy up
cause and effect is no mere an academic exercise. For
example, the Mexican economy is now being stimulated by drug
smuggling into the U.S —a reality Cave doesn`t consider,
although an
amazing 40,000 Mexicans
have murdered each other for the
drug money in the last four and a half years. Mexican
cartels have in recent years displaced

Colombian cartels
as the chief profiteers from
smuggling. That pays for a
lot of
pointy boots
.

But it
also means that defeating the narco-cartels someday could
cause another rush to the border by Mexico`s
newly-unemployed, when America`s economy finally turns
around.

Another
example: did much of Obama`s vaunted stimulus flow to
Mexico? In the comment thread on Cave`s article (now often
the best part of MSM stories), a

North Carolina bricklayer pointed out
:

“It`s insanely
ironic—the stimulus money that has been directed toward
highway improvement in my area is going toward companies
that hire mainly illegals—the road crews are almost all
Latino—and the money is

going straight to their country of origin.

Overall, Cave`s evidence that Mexicans are
staying home because life in Mexico has gotten better is
hardly overwhelming. As another commenter, Martin Vega of
Brooklyn,

told
Cave:

“You over-extended
your story on the traditional, high exit migration zones
while failing to note a countervailing increase in
immigration from the largely indigenous states from southern
Mexico (i.e. the Mixteca in Puebla, Guerrero, Oaxaca and
Chiapas). … This trend towards increasing out-migration is
also true for the other Mesoamerican states known as the
`northern triangle` (Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador).”

Cave`s
reporting is confined to upbeat anecdotes from the state of
Jalisco, economically a relatively sophisticated region in
the west-central part of the country. Jalisco has been
sending people into the U.S. for 90 years. It is shielded
from the narco-violence of the north and the ancient
indigenous poverty of the south.

It`s a beautiful place that should have
become prosperous long ago. I visited Jalisco`s capital

Guadalajara
and its

American expatriate
community along

Lake Chapala
44 years ago because my parents had heard,
way back in 1967, that it was a nice place for
gringos
to retire. (At 5,000 feet, Lake Chapala is a classic example
of those altitude-induced moderate temperatures).

In
theory, it makes a lot of economic sense for the demographic
tides to be flowing in the opposite direction. American Baby
Boomers should be flooding into sunny Mexico for their
retirements, where they could find cheap domestic help.
That`s what my parents were anticipating way back in 1967.

In practice, however, Mexico just hasn`t
got its act together well enough to attract all that many
American retirees who are

less adventurous
than old

war correspondent
Fred Reed.

The essential concept that evades the
mental grasp of Cave and the
NYT`s editors:
convergence.

Mexico
has indeed been—very slowly—becoming more like the U.S.

For example, Walmart, a firm that clawed
its way out of the Ozarks by being ruthlessly efficient, now
operates
1,773
stores in Mexico and Central America.

Walmart
bans even the normal American corporate
etiquette of

salesmen taking buyers out to lunch
. So its stern
morality is likely teaching Mexico`s traditional culture of
corruption some much-needed lessons.

But, just as the temperature inside your
house in July or January will eventually converge with the
unpleasant temperature outside if you leave your doors open
(unless you spend ever more on
air
conditioning
or heating), decades of mass immigration
from Mexico mean that America is also converging on Mexico:
poorly-paid, underemployed, economically unequal,
educationally unmotivated, and

oligarchical
.

Not
surprisingly, the more America becomes like Mexico
economically, the less attractive of a destination it is to
Mexicans.

Another lesson to be learned from the
theory of convergence: while you could, at vast expense, air
condition a few feet of your porch by keeping your windows
open, you can`t cool
off the whole world
.

The global population will hit seven
billion next

spring
. The U.N. predicts

ten billion
by 2100. It forecasts that Mexico`s southern
neighbor, Guatemala, will grow from five million in 1970 to
46 million in 89
years.

These
billions of people are going to have to solve their own
problems. We can`t do it for them by letting them into
America.

The gradual Mexicanization of America was
covered up for much of the last decade by the subprime
bubble centered in the

Mexodus
-ground zero Sand States of California, Arizona,
Nevada, and Florida. When that popped, however, the damage
was revealed.

You can
see the impact of the Bush Era boom and bust cycle on
Mexican attitudes about emigrating to America in three
surveys conducted in Mexico by the Pew Hispanic Center. Cave
glosses over this data, because it reveals the horrifying
impact that Open Borders would have.

When Mexicans were asked, at the

peak
of Bush`s drive for increasing minority
homeownership through lax lending, if they would be inclined
to go to work legally in the U.S. in a temporary worker
program, 52 percent in February 2005 and 54 percent in May
2005 said "Yes".
This
translates to 56 million people
(assuming they bring
their

underage dependents
, which the 2004 Bush plan would have
allowed).

And 21 percent of Mexican adults were

prepared to enter America illegally
if they had to. 

By 2009, after the

Minority Mortgage Meltdown
had set off the current
recession and American patriots had defeated multiple
amnesty drives, only

33 percent
of Mexicans admitted that they wanted move to
America legally.


But
that`s still over 35 million Mexicans!

And 18 percent (down from 21 percent—big deal)
would still come to America illegally.

Pew
writes:

“This
decline may be tied in part to the economic downturn in the
U.S., which has resulted in fewer jobs for immigrants.
Four-in-ten Mexicans say they know someone who left for the
U.S. but returned because they could not find a job,
although even more
(47%) report knowing someone who returned because they

were turned back by the Border Patrol
.”

(My
emphasis).

Cave does admit that Americans finally
growing a backbone has
had a deterrent effect:

“Laws
restricting illegal immigrants` rights or making it tougher
for employers to hire them have

passed in more than a dozen states since 2006
. The same
word-of-mouth networks that used to draw people north are
now advising against the journey. `Without papers all you`re
thinking about is, when are the police going to stop you or
what other risks are you going to face,` said Andrés
Orozco.”

But, correctly in my view, Cave attributes
much of the credit for improvements in life in Mexico to
declining fertility.
“In simple terms, Mexican families are smaller than they had
once been.”
Per
capita
income has risen in Mexico in large part because
the growth in the number of
capitas has
slowed.

Cave`s article suggests to the thoughtful
reader that the general solution for
Mexican
overpopulation
is: Mexicans should not have
more
children than they can afford
.

But
while fertility has fallen to about the replacement rate in
Mexico, that country has long unloaded its surplus
population upon the U.S. And here,

immigrants from Mexico give birth at far higher rates than
Mexicans in Mexico.

In turn, this imposition by foreigners
depresses the fertility of Americans by making family
formation less

affordable
. Thus, in California in 2005, during the
Housing Bubble and the
Bush Push for amnesty/ unlimited guest workers
, the
total fertility rate for foreign-born Hispanic women was

3.7
babies per lifetime, compared to 1.6 for
American-born white women.

In effect, Americans are having

fewer grandchildren
so that Mexican illegal aliens can
have more.

That
doesn`t seem like a very good deal to me.

However, Mexican-American fertility in the
United States appears highly sensitive to the political
climate. As I
pointed out in VDARE in 2002
, the amnesty passed in 1986
caused a massive

baby boom
among formerly illegal aliens in California.
The total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics soared
from 3.2 in 1987 to 4.4 in 1991. Which means another amnesty
would likely cause another demographic

pig in a python.

The real revelation (possibly inadvertent)
in Cave`s NYT article, however:
any decline in illegal
immigration has been at least partly offset by an expansion
in quasi-legal immigration
.

Cave,
who seems to think this is just fine, blithely details a
shocking dereliction of duty by a State Department official
named Edward McKeon ("One
man, Mr. McKeon, the minister counselor who oversees all
consular affairs in Mexico, has played a significant role in
that expansion")
who has been turning illegal immigrants
into legal ones through legerdemain.

The
results are devastating:

“A significant
expansion of legal immigration—aided by American consular
officials—is also under way. … State Department figures show
that Mexicans who have become American citizens have legally
brought in 64 percent more immediate relatives, 220,500 from
2006 through 2010, compared with the figures for the
previous five years. Tourist visas are also being granted at
higher rates of around 89 percent, up from 67 percent, while
American farmers have legally hired 75 percent more
temporary workers since 2006.”

Chief villain McKeon, no surprise, is a
Bush State Department appointee (in Mexico since
"the summer of 2007."):


“Edward McKeon, the top American official for consular
affairs in Mexico, said he had focused on making legal
passage to the United States easier in an effort to prevent
people from giving up and going illegally. He has even
helped those who were previously illegal overcome
bans on
entering the United States
.”

McKeon
unilaterally decided to

“de-emphasize the
affordability standard that held that visas were to be
denied to those who could not prove an income large enough
to support travel to the United States. … This led to an
almost immediate decrease in the rejection rate for tourist
visas. Before he arrived, around 32 percent were turned
down. Since 2008, the rate has been around 11 percent.”

Lots of
those low-income, low-skill foreigners stay in our country.

But
that`s not the end of McKeon`s war on American workers:

“Mr. McKeon … was
also instrumental in expanding the temporary visa program
for agricultural workers. … Mr. McKeon began hosting
conferences with all the stakeholders …”

You and I, as citizens of the United
States, are
“stakeholders”
in America`s immigration policy.

But I
wasn`t invited to Mr. McKeon`s conferences.

Were you?

[Email
the US Embassy in Mexico and ask
why not].

This is simply a high-ranking State
Department mandarin facilitating special interest
corruption. It`s a campaign being waged by the

powerful
using the

foreign poor
against the

American people
.

It`s the Mexicanization of America.

Carlos Slim (and his
New York Times employees) approve.

[Steve Sailer (email
him) is


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.

His website

www.iSteve.blogspot.com

features his daily blog. His new book,

AMERICA`S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA`S
"STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is
available


here
.]