[...] researching a response within this topic I came accross articles on Mexico’s immigration laws. It struck me, and the writers from the [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Steve,

Your statements are valid and also shared by many conservatives. The RNC got more than an earful on this issue with illegal immigration last year. Enforce the laws and build a fence became almost a mantra.

As for immigration laws, if we want to imitate others, we could incorporate Mexico’s immigration and guest laws into our. Below is just one story from a Yahoo search on “Mexican immigration law”

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop022707.htm

What is Mexico’s law?

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.

Under the constitution, the Ley General de Poblacion, 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.

I think I will have to do a post solely dedicated to this as adopting a Mexican style immigration law would be interesting as the author I quotes states.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The solutions are only possible if there is political will and what I addressed was the lack of it, to put it mildly, among the current crop of the likely nominees for both parties. I have just seen an analysis at “Free Republic” of the Senatorial seats in flux and in jeopardy in November. This kind of thinking needs to be expanded, a counter-strategy to the amnesty developed, and an effort mobilized to counter the Presidential threat. Let me quote from the analysis:

A total of thirteen Class II Senate seats, currently held by Senators that took stances on Immigration Reform Legislation in 2007, are expected to have strong competition in the November General Elections. Ten opposed the amnesty bill, while three favored the bill.

Of the Class II Republican Senators voting Nay on Immigration Reform Legislation, 9 seats will face strong competition. The two Republicans that supported the amnesty packages are due to leave office.

Of the Class II Democratic Senators voting Nay on Immigration Reform Legislation, 1 will face strong competition. Additionally, 1 additional Senator absent due to health problems at the time votes were cast is a supporter of those measures, and may face stiff competition due to those health concerns.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: “I consider this wishful thinking. ”

Perhaps it is. While my personal “simple” solution is to buuild a fence and throw employers who hire illegals in jail, I also understand that they are by no means as “simple” as my glib comment implies.

For one thing, if I recall correctly, most of the illegal aliens in the US did not cross the river but merely overstayed legitimate visas (tourist, student, …), so a fence of any kind is not going to stop them (anyone with better knowledge than I, please check me on that one).

Secondly, citizenship verification is not as simple as I make it sound, considering the multitude of potential documents and the popular resistance to a national identity card (although a passport certainly comes close, so perhaps requiring that every American seeking a job first obtain a passpport might be a back door method of accomplishing exacctly that.

But any “solution” to the illegals is certainly not going to come out of election sloganeering, even if it is a slogan I might like to hear (Bumper Sticker thinking is dangerous, no matter who practices it). So I hope whomever is elected at least waits a decent interval and tries to come up with something that is at least partly workable and not pandering too much (even if it is a “pander” I might like).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Somebody is already reacting to my concerns with a counter-strategy. This needs to be publicized and used to mobilize a pre-emptive effort:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966125/posts

Like or Dislike: 0  0

- I am less inclined to believe that the next president will push hard to “legalize the illegals”. This has become something os a political third-rail and I would predict that any president will duck and hide from getting out in front of this one.

I consider this wishful thinking. This “third-rail” didn’t stop a presumptive Republican nominee and much less likely to be troublesome to Hillary given how well she did among the Hispanics. McCain seems obsessed with this issue based on his behavior last summer and any Democrat realizes the value of creating a permanent Democratic majority.

Many of us believed Fred could win. He had no chance after a few realities became known. Facing unpleasant realities is better than denying them.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Activist judges = Souter and the rest of the clowns
P-E-R-I-O-D.

As far as your example, name the decision. If your gonna name Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company then your sorely mistaken since giving corporations the same status as individuals under the 14th amendment was not ruled on by the court. They decided the case on other grounds. The court reporter at the time included a justices comment on the matter in the headnotes and ta-da, legal precedence was born which has been whittled away ever since. If your trying to compare the two decisions then you obviously got other problems, one of which I surmise is a severe case of BDS. Not surprising coming from a Salon fanboi.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Activist judges=the Rehnquist-wing in Bush v Gore 2000.
P-E-R-I-O-D.

As for rights that don’t exist in the Constitution, who decided a corporation had the rights of individuals? ThaT DECISION Makes finding the right to privacy in Roe v Wade look like child’s play.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Other then shredding the Constitution? Are you kidding me? One of the worst decisions in the last century based on a right that does not exist in the Constitution, that being the right to privacy. Abortion was a State matter before RvW, and should be a State matter today. Medical procedures are not addressed in the Constitution, the powers to regulate them are not a federal issue.

Judicial activism was the result and one of the main reasons why Hillary/Obama needs to be defeated.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

With regard to your “Super Tuesday Thoughts” blog, I would like to ask you a question in all sincerity. What is it that you think Roe v. Wade ‘did to our country?’

Like or Dislike: 0  0