Mexican Immigration Laws

[Proteas]

----------

Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home
by J. Michael Waller
Posted: 05/08/2006
Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven't been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it's noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

* in the country legally;
* have the means to sustain themselves economically;
* not destined to be burdens on society;
* of economic and social benefit to society;
* of good character and have no criminal records; and
* contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:
* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
* A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
* "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
* Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

This article was first posted at CenterforSecurityPolicy.org.

1. "Mexico's Glass House," Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper, April 3, 2006.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i d=14632

----------

*quietly sits back and watches this topic become the most ignored piece in BBS history*

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

Question:

Who the hell would want to voluntarily go to Mexico as an illegal immigrant?

[Korriken]

At 8/21/07 06:25 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Question:

Who the hell would want to voluntarily go to Mexico as an illegal immigrant?

apparently you would be amazed.

Personally, i FREAKING LOVE Mexico's setup, "hey, you aren't here legally, your ass is grass and I'm the lawnmower man!

[stafffighter]

The only arguments I could find here were the criminal record standings (to allow for reformed criminals or just people who made mistakes) and the physical abilities requirments. Some simple review standards and indivudual case reviews would make this more appealing without adding too much complication. For example if someone stole a car 20 years ago, served their time and become a good citizen they could be put up for consideration. Same for someone who needs a wheelchair but functions fully in said state.
Also the bit about preserving demographics sounds iffy.

[Empanado]

At 8/21/07 06:25 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Question:

Who the hell would want to voluntarily go to Mexico as an illegal immigrant?

Guatemalans, Hondureans, Salvadoreans, Nicaraguans...

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

The idea of making it a felony punished by possible prison time is absurd.

Remember when American's freaked the fucked out because an American committed a crime in Singapore, and THEY punished him instead of telling us too? They gave the little fucking punk what he deserved, and the U.S freaked out. How hypocritical would it then be to imprison people because they AREN'T citizens? Them NOT being U.S citizens would point to us NOT having the power to imprison them.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

Oh, plus the adoption of that would be ruled unconstitutional in a second.

"Whats that? Your productive 3-member family with no record wants to imigrate? Oh, I'm sorry, but we're trying to make sure that white men still outnumber mexicans, you can't come in until some whitey has another baby". "Whats that, potential immigrants from [white country], you want to bring your minimum wage making 10-person family who's had issues with the police in? Sure, no problem! Move, Mexican family, white families coming in!"

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/21/07 06:25 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Question:

Who the hell would want to voluntarily go to Mexico as an illegal immigrant?

Often times that poorer countries have A tax system that favors individuals who are rich that hoard they're money. [Part of the reason they're poor; money has to be in strong flow rather than hoarded in cutt-off points]

[Reignspike]

At 8/21/07 06:37 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Remember when American's freaked the fucked out because an American committed a crime in Singapore, and THEY punished him instead of telling us too? They gave the little fucking punk what he deserved, and the U.S freaked out. How hypocritical would it then be to imprison people because they AREN'T citizens? Them NOT being U.S citizens would point to us NOT having the power to imprison them.

Well, I think the brat got what he deserved, too. But look at it this way: the US has treaties with Singapore such that the US is allowed to decide that certain people can go to Singapore and still be treated as US citizens. Singapore theoretically broke this treaty by treating the boy as a native.

Now if the boy had had no passport, he would have been doing something illegal in the eyes of both countries, and would not be protected by the passport treaties. The US might get upset, but Singapore would be doing nothing against any treaty by doing whatever they felt like to him.

That's simplistic, yes, but I hope it gets the point across.

[Der-Lowe]

At 8/21/07 06:42 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: "Whats that? Your productive 3-member family with no record wants to imigrate? Oh, I'm sorry, but we're trying to make sure that white men still outnumber mexicans, you can't come in until some whitey has another baby".

There are whites in Mexico you know, being Mexican does not mean being non-white.

[reviewer-general]

At 8/21/07 06:37 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: The idea of making it a felony punished by possible prison time is absurd.

Remember when American's freaked the fucked out because an American committed a crime in Singapore, and THEY punished him instead of telling us too? They gave the little fucking punk what he deserved, and the U.S freaked out. How hypocritical would it then be to imprison people because they AREN'T citizens? Them NOT being U.S citizens would point to us NOT having the power to imprison them.

Why is it absurd? If you are caught with drugs in Mexico, you go to jail. For a LONG time. Their country, their laws, THEIR jurisdiction. And of course we're hypocritical, WE'RE FUCKING AMERICANS! We get special treatment anywhere we go, and no one better touch us. Some foreigner fucks up here and we throw the book at them. America considers itself above all other countries legally. For example: The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1884 gives the US the jurisdiction to hunt down a murderer of an American WHEREVER THEY ARE ON THE GLOBE. There was no international conference decision on this; the US simply arrogated itself the right to decide if you kill an American, you may as well have killed him on Broadway. Meaning US jurisdiction covers the whole planet.

Then there is the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986. It entails that if a foreign government refuses to release the perp into US custody we can send in an FBI team to snatch him back. This is called a rendition.

The US does whatever it wants, when it wants, so don't alk to me about hypocrisy. We are already there.

At 8/21/07 06:42 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Oh, plus the adoption of that would be ruled unconstitutional in a second.

"Whats that? Your productive 3-member family with no record wants to imigrate? Oh, I'm sorry, but we're trying to make sure that white men still outnumber mexicans, you can't come in until some whitey has another baby". "Whats that, potential immigrants from [white country], you want to bring your minimum wage making 10-person family who's had issues with the police in? Sure, no problem! Move, Mexican family, white families coming in!"

Now you are spinning the whole idea of the law. First of all, preserving demographics doesn't mean denying everyone who isn't Hispanic. What it was driving at was not letting in nutjobs who would work to destabalise the government, commit acts of terror, etc. And the 10 member family that can't support itself adequately, has criminal records, etc would be denied under Articles 32, 34, and 37.

The Mexicans are sending a message with the severity of the punishments. If it could cost them 10 years in jail, would we still have a large problem with illegals?

Sadly, yes. For one thing, we are very inefficient at finding illegals, and they love our prisons. The ones more serious about setting up a new life here might not want to risk jail time, but the REALLY poor would love to have the US taxpayers pay for them. That's a definite problem with this. The taxpayers are paying for all the arrested illegals. We would have to deport most of them, and we don't have the resources for that.

We are fucked.

;

[reviewer-general]

Oh, and props on the thread, Pro.

;

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/21/07 07:47 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

Why is it absurd?

Did you not read what I posted? I gave you the reason; you cannot punish someone that legally does not fall within your jurisdiction. Just like how you can't sue someone in Japan in a U.S court or try a California crime in a Texas court.

If you are caught with drugs in Mexico, you go to jail. For a LONG time.

Unless you bribed them. The point? Mexico's a fucked up nation with practices no good American would want in their nation.

Their country, their laws, THEIR jurisdiction.

Exactly. THEIR jurisdiction, not ours.

And of course we're hypocritical, WE'RE FUCKING AMERICANS! We get special treatment anywhere we go, and no one better touch us. Some foreigner fucks up here and we throw the book at them. America considers itself above all other countries legally. For example: The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1884 gives the US the jurisdiction to hunt down a murderer of an American WHEREVER THEY ARE ON THE GLOBE.

Before I look that up, I would say that's bullshit. The U.S has no jurisdiction to allow the police into another nation (they simply would have no power there) and using troops to do it would be an act of war. I'll look it up real quick when I'm done posting.

There was no international conference decision on this; the US simply arrogated itself the right to decide if you kill an American, you may as well have killed him on Broadway. Meaning US jurisdiction covers the whole planet.

Except that anyone knowledgeable in law knows that's not true. A state set's it's own laws; citizens in Georgia and Russia, for example, submit to THEIR laws, not ours.

Then there is the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986. It entails that if a foreign government refuses to release the perp into US custody we can send in an FBI team to snatch him back. This is called a rendition.

I'll reply to this in a second; not enough characters. Oh, and that isn't rendition. Rendition is when one nation hands over a suspect to another nation.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 12. THE ANTITERRORISM ACT

PARAGRAPH PAGE

12.01 General 12-1

12.02 VA Responsibility 12-1

12.03 Claims . 12-1

12.04 Entitlement and Other Provisions 12-2

12.05 Instructions for the Baltimore Regional Office 12-3

12.06 Adjudication Responsibilities 12-3

12.07 Finance Responsibilities 12-5

FIGURES

12.01 Format for Letters to Claimants 12-4

12.02 Format for Letters to Schools and Job Training Establishments 12-6

CHAPTER 12. THE ANTITERRORISM ACT

12.01 GENERAL

Public Law 99-399, The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, hereafter referred to as the Antiterrorism Act, became effective January 21, 1981. Under this Act, VA may provide education benefits to:

a. Former captives who were employees of the United States Government. Individuals providing personal services to the United States similar to that provided by civil service employees may also be eligible. This includes foreign nationals and resident aliens of the United States.

b. Former captives taken during hostile action resulting from their relationship with the United States.

c. Family members of individuals in captivity or individuals who die while in captivity.

12.02 VA RESPONSIBILITY

VA will provide educational benefits to persons eligible under the Antiterrorism Act that are identical to those provided to eligible persons under chapter 35 of title 38, U.S. Code.

12.03 CLAIMS

a. The Department of State determines eligibility. The claimant should send a letter to the Department of State describing the incident on which he or she is basing the claim. Family members should include their relationship to the captive. A claimant should send the letter to:

Director General of the Foreign Service
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520

b. If the claimant is eligible, the Department of State will send a letter to the claimant advising him or her to contact the Department of Veterans Affairs for information on education benefits. In addition, the Department of State will send a copy of the letter to Director, Education Service. The Education Service will send a letter to the claimant enclosing VA Pamphlet 22-90-4, Summary of Educational Benefits Under the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, Public Law 99-399, and Executive Order 12598, and VA Form 22-1990, Application for Education Benefits. The claimant will be instructed to complete the application and send it to the Baltimore regional office. A copy of the letter will be sent to the Baltimore regional office, accompanied by a copy of the Department of State eligibility letter.

c. Any VA regional office may assist a claimant in preparing the letter to the Department of State. If a claimant presents a Department of State eligibility letter to a VA regional office, ask the claimant to complete a VA Form 22-1990. Tell the claimant not to complete items 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 22. Mark "ANTITERRORISM ACT" on the top of the first page of the form. Send the letter and application to:

Director
VA Regional Office
Federal Building
Hopkins Plaza
Baltimore, Maryland 21201

12.04 ENTITLEMENT AND OTHER PROVISIONS

a. Former Captives

(1) Effective Date. A former captive may receive benefits for education or training following his or her release.

(2) Entitlement. A former captive may receive up to 45 months of benefits.

(3) Delimiting Date. The delimiting date is 10 years after the day of the captive's release. If the former captive is in training on his or her delimiting date, he or she may be eligible for an extension.

(a) If the delimiting date falls within a term, quarter or semester, benefits may be extended to the end of that term, quarter, or semester.

(b) If the school does not operate on a term, quarter, or semester basis, benefits may be extended to the end of a
12-week period following the delimiting date.

b. Spouses

(1) Effective Date. An eligible spouse may receive benefits for education or training starting 90 days after his or her spouse became a captive.

(2) Entitlement. An eligible spouse may receive up to 45 months of benefits.

(3) Delimiting Date. The delimiting date for an eligible spouse will be the date of the captive's release. If the spouse is in training on his or her delimiting date, he or she may be eligible for an extension.

(a) If the delimiting date falls within a term, quarter or semester, benefits may be extended to the end of that term, quarter, or semester.

(b) If the school does not operate on a term, quarter, or semester basis, benefits may be extended to the end of a
12-week period following the delimiting date.

(4) Extension of Delimiting Date. The Department of State may extend an eligible spouse's period of eligibility. The extension may be until the eligible spouse uses 45 months of entitlement or 10 years following the date of the captive's release. If a former captive dies and the death is due to the individual's captivity, payments are available for 45 months of entitlement or 10 years following the date of the captive's death. The eligible spouse should send a letter to the Department of State requesting an extension of his or her period of eligibility.

c. Children

(1) Effective Date. An eligible child may receive benefits for education or training starting 90 days after his or her parent became a captive.

(2) Entitlement. An eligible child may receive up to 45 months of benefits.

(3) Delimiting Date. The delimiting date is the child's 21st birthday or the date of the captive's release, whichever is earlier. If the child is in training on his or her delimiting date, he or she may be eligible for an extension.

(a) If the delimiting date falls within a term, quarter or semester, benefits may be extended to the end of that term, quarter, or semester.

(b) If the school does not operate on a term, quarter, or semester basis, benefits may be extended to the end of a 12-week period following the delimiting date.

(4) Extension of Delimiting Date. The Department of State may extend a child's period of eligibility. The procedure for requesting an extension is the same as that for a spouse. (See subpar. b(4) above.)

12.05 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BALTIMORE REGIONAL OFFICE

The Baltimore regional office processes all claims for benefits under the Antiterrorism Act.

a. Adjudication issues certificates of eligibility, and prepares awards and letters to eligible claimants.

b. Finance issues monthly payments, and sends and processes all required certification forms.

12.06 ADJUDICATION RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Upon receipt of the application and the Department of State eligibility letter, prepare a dictated letter advising the claimant of his or her entitlement and delimiting date. For a former captive, use 10 years from the date of his or her release. For a spouse, use "the date of your spouse's release" as the delimiting date. For a child, use "your 21st birthday or the date of your parent's release, whichever is earlier." If the Department of State granted an extension for a spouse or child, use the extended date. (See fig. 12.01 for a sample format for the letter.) Include VA Form 22-1999, Enrollment Certification. Line out items 6, 19, and 20.

b. Contact the Education Liaison Representative in the regional office of jurisdiction for approval information. Record the approval information on the application for benefits.

c. Prepare award packages as follows:

(1) VA Form 22-1992, Authorization for Certificate of Eligibility or Disallowance, with the certificate of eligibility data. In item 4, enter "ANTITERRORISM ACT." Complete all required items. (See pt. IV, ch. 12.) Do not use Target.

(2) VA Form 22-1997, Education Award, according to the current instructions for out-of-system awards.
(See pt. IV, ch. 12.) Enter "ANTITERRORISM ACT" in Remarks.

d. end a dictated award letter to the claimant. It should be similar to that sent to trainees in other education benefit programs.

Ok, I am probably missing it, but I saw nothing in there that backs you up.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/21/07 07:47 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

Now you are spinning the whole idea of the law. First of all, preserving demographics doesn't mean denying everyone who isn't Hispanic. What it was driving at was not letting in nutjobs who would work to destabalise the government, commit acts of terror, etc. And the 10 member family that can't support itself adequately, has criminal records, etc would be denied under Articles 32, 34, and 37.

Sorry, but what sources do you have for that? Personally, I know next to nothing on Mexican immigration laws.

The Mexicans are sending a message with the severity of the punishments. If it could cost them 10 years in jail, would we still have a large problem with illegals?

Apparently we would, since THEY still do.

This is like wanting to adopt the New Orleans anti-flood plans and saying "If we had those measures, would a massive flood destroy the city?"

...um... yes?

Sadly, yes.

Wait, then what was the poi... arg, confused.

For one thing, we are very inefficient at finding illegals, and they love our prisons.

They love our prisons? That's just stupid.

The ones more serious about setting up a new life here might not want to risk jail time, but the REALLY poor would love to have the US taxpayers pay for them.

Except that some illegals pay taxes.

That's a definite problem with this. The taxpayers are paying for all the arrested illegals. We would have to deport most of them, and we don't have the resources for that.
We are fucked.

Exactly, and adopting the Mexicans failed ways won't help. The first step is getting an administration that won't keep pandering to illegals for the Mexican vote.

[reviewer-general]

At 8/22/07 12:47 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: I'll reply to this in a second; not enough characters. Oh, and that isn't rendition. Rendition is when one nation hands over a suspect to another nation.

No, that is an extradition. A rendition is an snatch of a suspect without permission of the host country.

At 8/22/07 12:58 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/21/07 07:47 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

Now you are spinning the whole idea of the law. First of all, preserving demographics doesn't mean denying everyone who isn't Hispanic. What it was driving at was not letting in nutjobs who would work to destabalise the government, commit acts of terror, etc. And the 10 member family that can't support itself adequately, has criminal records, etc would be denied under Articles 32, 34, and 37.

Sorry, but what sources do you have for that? Personally, I know next to nothing on Mexican immigration laws.

Did you RAED Proteas's post?:

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

;

[reviewer-general]

At 8/22/07 12:58 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

For one thing, we are very inefficient at finding illegals, and they love our prisons.

They love our prisons? That's just stupid.

Of course they do. Coming from the shithole conditions they live in they get fed housed and don't have to pay a cent. Free living.

The ones more serious about setting up a new life here might not want to risk jail time, but the REALLY poor would love to have the US taxpayers pay for them.

Except that some illegals pay taxes.

"some"

Exactly.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/22/07 03:47 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

No, that is an extradition.

Extradition is a type of rendition, yes.

A rendition is an snatch of a suspect without permission of the host country.

Rendition is when someone "hands over" someone else; literally, that's what it means.

Did you RAED Proteas's post?:

Yes, he posted the Mexican immigration laws.

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

And if we cut all the unrelated, we get ""the equilibrium of the national demographics," as a possible reason of being left out.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/22/07 03:49 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

Of course they do. Coming from the shithole conditions they live in they get fed housed and don't have to pay a cent. Free living.

You have obviously never been to mexico and a jail before.

Note: Mexico's nicer. You aren't confined to a tiny cell all day, you have a much lower chance of getting raped up the ass, you have considerably more personal freedoms. and the fences if prison are electric. There are also guards that try to shoot you if you hop them.

"some"
Exactly.

Exactly. So claims that all Illegals are motivated by tax, a claim I have seen used a lot, is false.

Oh, and I found no mention of that 1884 act. So both of your laws failed to back you up, my friend.

[morefngdbs]

At 8/21/07 06:22 PM, Proteas wrote: ----------

Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

;
Doesn't this clause, if adopted as a U.S. Immigration standard, mean that Mexican farm laborers would then be a class of people that would be benificial to the U.S. They fill a need that many farms through out the U.S. (& Canada as well) are constantly looking for. Cheap human labor.
Wouldn't their 'cheap labor' be looked upon as a contribution to the nation. After all they are getting food from the feilds to the consumer for a cheeper cost. Doing work that most people in the U.S. don't/won't do. That is of itself another asset.

[LabBattle]

At 8/23/07 12:23 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/21/07 06:22 PM, Proteas wrote:

After all they are getting food from the feilds to the consumer for a cheeper cost. Doing work that most people in the U.S. don't/won't do. That is of itself another asset.

You know who would work better than nontaxpaying illegals, criminals. Make them work the fields, have the farmers pay the state for inmate workers, and use the money to give the guards raises, hire additional staff or maybe build more prisons. People in jail would make a great and cheap workforce, its better than my tax dollars paying for them to work out all day or take college courses in prison, make them do the work.

[tony4moroney]

At 8/21/07 06:22 PM, Proteas wrote:

nice food for thought but the problem is, once again people are comparing the u.s to [insert 3rd/ 2nd world country here] rather than a fellow successful and humane country

'holy bajeebus i just checked w.h.o and we're friggin morbid we should do something about this'
'pfft check out [insert 3rd/ 2nd world country here] you ingrate'

At 8/21/07 06:25 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Question:

Who the hell would want to voluntarily go to Mexico as an illegal immigrant?

lol if i could spare the money i'd offer someone some reimbursement to do it and try to video document their experience it'd be friggin interesting that's for sure.

[morefngdbs]

At 8/23/07 05:02 PM, LabBattle wrote:

At 8/23/07 12:23 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/21/07 06:22 PM, Proteas wrote:

After all they are getting food from the feilds to the consumer for a cheeper cost. Doing work that most people in the U.S. don't/won't do. That is of itself another asset.

You know who would work better than nontaxpaying illegals, criminals. Make them work the fields, have the farmers pay the state for inmate workers,

;
The first part of your post , if they were here legally they would pay taxes.
We were talking about how adopting a part of the Mexican system into the U.S. system.
By doingt that I thought that the part I quoted meant that they would be a welcome addition to the U.S.
1) they provide a service that the country needs.
2) by being here working ,they could afford to feed, house etc. themselves working as laborers on farms.

THere was nothing about useing prison workers as cheap labor.
Not that I'm disagreeing with making convicts work. As long as what they do doesn't harm regular workers in society. See the movie 'Shawshank Redemtion' it shows how a crooked warden & guards used convict cheap labor to underbid regular contractors, so they could not compete.

[reviewer-general]

At 8/23/07 01:18 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/22/07 03:47 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Did you RAED Proteas's post?:

Yes, he posted the Mexican immigration laws.

And if we cut all the unrelated, we get ""the equilibrium of the national demographics," as a possible reason of being left out.

And what would you say that implies?
;

[Scythian]

no one cares about the mexicans they need to stay outta the u.s thers too many anyway

[RommelTJ]

At 8/21/07 06:25 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Question:

Who the hell would want to voluntarily go to Mexico as an illegal immigrant?

This is precisely the point. Mexican Congress has debated this issue many times, considering even lowering their punishments for such crimes. However, the US has an interest in Mexican laws staying the way they are. Nicaraguans, Hondurans, etc in their great majority cross into Mexico with the intention of getting in the US.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/23/07 07:03 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

And what would you say that implies?

I won't talk about what it implies, instead I'll deal with what it explicitly states; that if we decide theres two many of a specific people, we can bar them from citizenship.

America too gay already? Don't admit fags.
Negro's sucking up to many jobs? Don't admit darkies.
Canadian people still Canadian? Don't admit Canadians.

The issue is that in America, we have specifically barred treating Demographics differently based on Race, Sex, Creed, or Sexual Preference.