VZCZCXRO3210
RR RUEHCD RUEHGD RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL RUEHRD RUEHRS RUEHTM
DE RUEHME #0743/01 0411810
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 101810Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8851
INFO RUEHXC/ALL US CONSULATES IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MEXICO 000743 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV MX
SUBJECT: PAN DEPUTIES DENOUNCE BORDER FENCE PROPOSAL 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: On February 8, ten members of the National 
Action Party's (PAN) faction in the Chamber of Deputies met 
with poloffs to voice their strong opposition to the 
provision of H.R. 4437 calling for the extension of the fence 
that now exists along portions of the U.S.-Mexican border. 
The deputies delivered a letter asking the Ambassador to 
convey to the USG their opposition.  Following the meeting, 
the deputies spoke to the assembled press outside the 
embassy, which was reported in the February 9 editions of 
several newspapers.  With Mexico in the midst of a highly 
competitive general election campaign, there is no doubt that 
the deputies were motivated in part by domestic political 
considerations, and it is a safe bet that during the heat of 
the campaign, U.S. immigration policy will remain a 
politically convenient target.  On the other hand, the 
deputies emphasized to us that their opposition was deeply 
rooted and principled, and that they felt compelled to speak 
out given the strong views of their constituents on this 
issue.  Although we believe our discussion with the deputies 
left them with a better understanding of the U.S. position, 
the border fence remains a highly emotional issue here.  On 
February 9 the group announced they would conduct a 24-hour 
vigil and fast in Tijuana. End summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) On February 8, and at their request, 10 PAN 
deputies met with poloffs to express their strong opposition 
to the provisions in H.R. 4437 calling for the extension of 
the border fence, and the criminalization of an alien's 
undocumented presence in the United States.  During the 
meeting, the deputies delivered a letter conveying their 
"most energetic rejection" of the fence proposal, arguing 
that policy decisions affecting life in the border region 
should be "adopted in a framework of respect (and) 
cooperation...and to the extent possible by consensus."  The 
letter argued that a border "wall" would violate Mexicans' 
freedom of movement, and conflicts with the trend towards 
increased U.S.-Mexico commercial, cultural and social 
integration.  In the letter, the deputies requested that the 
Ambassador convey their views to the U.S. executive and 
legislative branches.  The Ambassador has answered the 
letter, underscoring the need for improved border security 
and the President's commitment to a temporary worker program 
and challenging the assertion that the U.S. is planning to 
close its border with Mexico. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) During the meeting, the deputies -- nearly all of 
whom represented border states or states that have witnessed 
heavy emigration to the United States -- emphasized that they 
sought an open and respectful discussion of the issue.  They 
said that they greatly valued close U.S.-Mexican relations 
and hoped to see even further cooperation in the future. 
They recognized that poor economic conditions in Mexico were 
the major factor contributing to illegal immigration, adding 
that the GOM was seeking to implement structural reforms that 
would create more economic opportunities in Mexico and deter 
further migration.  Noting the trend towards leftist, 
anti-American governments in Latin America, Deputy Jose Osu$a 
of Baja California warned that construction of the fence 
could foment anti-Americanism in Mexico and help elect 
left-wing presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. 
 
 
¶4.  (SBU) While the meeting was conducted in a respectful, 
even friendly atmosphere, it revealed that even well-informed 
lawmakers shared some of the public's misperceptions about 
the fence proposal, particularly that it would somehow limit 
lawful border crossings.  Speaking with obvious emotion in 
her voice, Deputy Maki Esther Ortiz Dominguez noted that in 
her home state of Tamaulipas, numerous Mexicans had close 
relatives across the border, who they were accustomed to 
visiting regularly.  She argued that the proposed border 
fence would divide families. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Responding to the deputies' comments, POL 
Minister-Counselor recognized that the U.S.-Mexican border 
region had a unique dynamic, with numerous human and economic 
ties linking the two sides of the border.  She explained that 
many Americans perceived that the border was out of control, 
that immigration had become a major domestic political issue, 
and that there was strong public support for taking measures 
necessary to restore order on the border.  She noted that in 
the aftermath of 9/11, the lack of adequate border controls 
threatened U.S. national security.  She clarified that the 
fence proposal, if adopted, would have no effect on lawful 
border crossings and that in fact, the USG sought to 
streamline procedures for lawful border crossings.  Poloff 
urged the deputies to keep in mind that the fence proposal 
was part of a comprehensive immigration reform package in 
which the President sought to include a temporary worker 
program.  He added that given political realities in the 
U.S., the President's temporary worker program -- which would 
 
MEXICO 00000743  002 OF 002 
 
 
benefit millions of Mexicans on both sides of the border -- 
stood little chance of success unless it were part of a 
broader package that included enhanced border security. 
Poloff also explained the tremendous social and economic 
costs that undocumented aliens pose for U.S. border states 
and communities.  While leaving the meeting, one of the 
deputies remarked that our explanation of the context 
surrounding H.R. 4437 provided information that he was not 
previously aware of and helped him to better understand the 
U.S. position. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Following the meeting, the deputies spoke to about 
a dozen journalists outside the embassy.  The deputies 
announced that they planned to conduct public protests 
against the fence; we understand that the first of these may 
be scheduled for February 10. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Comment:  Election year politics undoubtedly were 
an important factor underlying the PAN deputies' initiative. 
It may be that as the PAN is widely viewed as by far the most 
pro-U.S. of Mexico's political parties, the deputies felt 
they had to prove their bona fides on the immigration issue. 
Nevertheless, their initiative also reflects the very deep -- 
even visceral -- public opposition here to the proposed 
border fence.  It serves as a reminder that Americans and 
Mexicans perceive the proposal in strikingly different terms. 
 Whereas Americans see the fence as a logical and justified 
response to an uncontrolled tide of illegal border crossings, 
Mexicans see a national affront, as well as a violation of a 
perceived fundamental right to migrate at will across 
international borders.  Bridging this yawning gap in 
perceptions will remain a major focus of our outreach 
efforts.  End comment. 
 
 
Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity 
 
KELLY