Why Not Apply Mexico’s Own Immigration Laws As The Model For All Members of NAFTA?

[Cicero]

Since Mexican President Calderón says that Arizona's new immigration law "opens the door to intolerance, hate, and discrimination," perhaps the United States should adopt his country's immigration laws?

Mexico's 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)

• 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)

Mexico’s Main Immigration Law

• 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)

• 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 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 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).

[NoScotsman]

In response to the new Arizona immigration law, ethnic groups such as "La Razza" have become even more militant. In an announcement tonight, "La Razza" will announce that they are changing their name to "La Razza Superior." Additionally, they will call for the extermination of the jews.

But seriously, the failures in Mexico's immigration strategy are really not relevant to US policy. I, for one, say open up the borders in the Americas. It's good for business. It's good for human rights. It's good for human relations. It's good for security.

[BeAChooser]

Since Mexican President Calderón says that Arizona's new immigration law "opens the door to intolerance, hate, and discrimination," perhaps the United States should adopt his country's immigration laws?

[crickets]

:D

[Cicero]

[crickets]

:D


http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j90/rkortes/Fall%202009/smiley2eatingpopcorn.gif

[Ziggurat]

But seriously, the failures in Mexico's immigration strategy are really not relevant to US policy. I, for one, say open up the borders in the Americas. It's good for business. It's good for human rights. It's good for human relations. It's good for security.

Not if you want even a moderate level of entitlements. Then it becomes unsustainable. A libertarian might argue that we shouldn't have much in the way of entitlements, but we do, and given that we're a democracy and most people want moderate entitlement spending, that's not going to change anytime soon. So we can't afford completely open borders. It's a recipe for fiscal disaster. We can allow more legal immigration than we do, but can't (and have no obligation to) accept unlimited immigration.

And I've got no idea why you think it's good for security.

[sesshin]

If enforcing immigration laws against illegal Hispanics is racist (even though they constitute 80-90% of illegals) then wouldn't the logical conclusion of that thinking be that illegal Hispanics should be exempt from immigration laws simply because they are Hispanic? And isn't that a racist view in itself?

I can understand the 4th Amendment concerns regarding the AZ law in how it might affect Hispanic citizens, but once you start calling it flat out "racist" against all Hispanics that seems to open a whole other logical can of worms.

[Darth Rotor]

Why Not Apply Mexico’s Own Immigration Laws As The Model For All Members of NAFTA?
They are written in Spanish, so the Quebecois would first pitch a hissy fit, demand they be written in French as well, and then ...

[NoScotsman]

Not if you want even a moderate level of entitlements. Then it becomes unsustainable. A libertarian might argue that we shouldn't have much in the way of entitlements, but we do, and given that we're a democracy and most people want moderate entitlement spending, that's not going to change anytime soon. So we can't afford completely open borders. It's a recipe for fiscal disaster. We can allow more legal immigration than we do, but can't (and have no obligation to) accept unlimited immigration.

And I've got no idea why you think it's good for security.

These were all good questions a few decades ago ... you know, when the EU was being debated. Since then, history has been kind to open borders/open immigration.

Also ... you can't think of a single reason why it might be good for security? (something Bush and Obama both agree with btw) ... Really?

[Cicero]

In response to the new Arizona immigration law, ethnic groups such as "La Razza" have become even more militant. In an announcement tonight, "La Razza" will announce that they are changing their name to "La Razza Superior." Additionally, they will call for the extermination of the jews.

But seriously, the failures in Mexico's immigration strategy are really not relevant to US policy. I, for one, say open up the borders in the Americas. It's good for business. It's good for human rights. It's good for human relations. It's good for security.

Really? Your hypocrisy meter should be pegged, The President of a country, whose immigration laws are infinitely more Draconian than the U.S. Federal law or SB 1070, is hot and bothered to change U.S. immigration laws to favor his fellow countrymen, but has no such interest in effecting change in his own country's immigration laws when it comes to Central Americans.

"Undocumented Central American migrants complain much more about how they are treated by Mexican officials than about authorities on the U.S. side of the border, where migrants may resent being caught but often praise the professionalism of the agents scouring the desert for their trail."

Mexico Harsh to Undocumented Migrants
By MARK STEVENSON
Associated Press Writer

[Ziggurat]

These were all good questions a few decades ago ... you know, when the EU was being debated. Since then, history has been kind to open borders/open immigration.

The EU doesn't have open borders or open immigration. So... fail.

Also ... you can't think of a single reason why it might be good for security? (something Bush and Obama both agree with btw) ... Really?

Open borders and open immigration? No. And since neither Obama nor Bush (nor, really, any American politician of any significance) ever advocated either, I've got no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[Cicero]

After the National Immigrant Solidarity Network protests in the U.S., will they move South to protest Mexico's immigration laws?


"We are calling A national day of multi-ethnic unity with youth, labor, peace and justice communities in solidarity with immigrant workers and building new immigrant rights & civil rights movement!"


"Wear White T-Shirt, organize local actions to support immigrant worker rights!"

1. No to anti-immigrant legislation, and the criminalization of the immigrant communities.
2. No to militarization of the border.
3. No to the immigrant detention and deportation.
4. No to the guest worker program.
5. No to employer sanction and “no match” letters.
6. Yes to a path to legalization without condition for undocumented immigrants NOW.
7. Yes to speedy family reunification.
8. Yes to civil rights and humane immigration law.
9. Yes to labor rights and living wages for all workers.
10. Yes to the education and LGBTQ immigrant legislation.

http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/MayDay2010/

[JCL]

When will we see a side-by-side comparison of Mexican and US laws?

[johnny karate]

Why are JREF forum members being asked to account for the presumed hypocrisy of the president of Mexico?

[Cicero]

Why are JREF forum members being asked to account for the presumed hypocrisy of the president of Mexico?

Nobody is being asked to account for Calderón's blatant hypocrisy, not even Calderón himself. The question being posed is why not substitute Mexico's immigration laws for those of the U.S. and Canada. They must be morally, ethically, and legally superior since those who criticize SB 1070 have nothing derogatory to say about Mexico's immigration laws.

[ANTPogo]

Nobody is being asked to account for Calderón's blatant hypocrisy, not even Calderón himself. The question being posed is why not substitute Mexico's immigration laws for those of the U.S. and Canada.

Because we're not Mexico. We have a different set of founding principles, a different tradition of multiculturalism, a different history of immigration, and a different Constitution.

One might as well wonder why we don't adopt the UK's election laws, or Saudia Arabia's laws regarding religion.

They must be morally, ethically, and legally superior since those who criticize SB 1070 have nothing derogatory to say about Mexico's immigration laws.

No, they have nothing derogatory to say about Mexico's immigration laws because they aren't citizens and/or residents of Mexico. They criticize SB 1070, on the other hand, because they are citizens and/or residents of the U.S.

[Thunder]

Mexico and Mexicans have NO right to demand the USA have immigration rules that are in any way different than those in Mexico.

[ANTPogo]

Mexico and Mexicans have NO right to demand the USA have immigration rules that are in any way different than those in Mexico.

American citizens and residents (even hispanics and those with parents born in Mexico), however, do.

[Cicero]

Because we're not Mexico. We have a different set of founding principles, a different tradition of multiculturalism, a different history of immigration, and a different Constitution.

And Calderón is so impressed with American culture and history that neither he nor his predecessors ever considered modifying their immigration laws to be more like America's?

One might as well wonder why we don't adopt the UK's election laws, or Saudi Arabia's laws regarding religion.


When King Abdullah and Queen Elizabeth publically call our freedom of religion law and election law as being hateful, intolerant and discriminatory, you might actually have a valid analogy.


No, they have nothing derogatory to say about Mexico's immigration laws because they aren't citizens and/or residents of Mexico. They criticize SB 1070, on the other hand, because they are citizens and/or residents of the U.S.

Ah, Calderón, I believe is a citizen of Mexico. In case you missed it, he is criticizing SB-1070, but has never applied the same critique of his own country's immigration laws.

This explains Mexican illegal aliens in the U.S. not pointing out Mexico's Draconian immigration laws because....?

But why would Hispanic SB-1070 protestors carry the Mexican flag if they were not proud of their native country, that has these Draconian immigration laws?

[DDWW]

I am ready to compromise.

Illegals can stay in the USA, but they all must move to San Francisco.

There, now everyone can be happy.:D

DD( just here to help)WW

[Cicero]

American citizens and residents (even hispanics and those with parents born in Mexico), however, do.

Comparing Mexico's immigration laws to the U.S. laws is not high on the list of things to do for the lame stream media. Why wouldn't the SB-1070 protestors not want to speak out against Mexico's Draconian immigration laws? None of them left Mexico because they despised their country's immigration laws? Were they not allowed to protest these laws when they were in Mexico? If not. Why not protest about them in the U.S.?

[Cicero]

I am ready to compromise.

Illegals can stay in the USA, but they all must move to San Francisco.

There, now everyone can be happy.:D

DD( just here to help)WW

Since S.F. was just voted the leanest city in the U.S., they definitely have the space.

[Cleon]

None of them left Mexico because they despised their country's immigration laws?

:boggled:

[pipelineaudio]

American citizens and residents (even hispanics and those with parents born in Mexico), however, do.

You mean the people who support 1070?

Yes you are right, but mexico is complaining about them

[ANTPogo]

And Calderón is so impressed with American culture and history that neither he nor his predecessors ever considered modifying their immigration laws to be more like America's?

The US and Mexico are different, Cicero. Laws that work for the US do not necessarily work for Mexico, because (as I pointed out to you already) vastly different histories and patterns of immigration, founding principles, and Constitutional guidelines.

When King Abdullah and Queen Elizabeth publically call our freedom of religion law and election law as being hateful, intolerant and discriminatory, you might actually have a valid analogy.

I was taking issue with your one-immigration-policy-fits-all stance, without which you have no grounds to call Calderon a hypocrite.

Ah, Calderón, I believe is a citizen of Mexico. In case you missed it, he is criticizing SB-1070, but has never applied the same critique of his own country's immigration laws.

If there were one Perfect Set of Immigration Laws that would be appropriate for all countries, no matter their history or culture or sociopolitical underpinnings, then you might have a point.

But if Immigration Law A is best for Country A, and Immigration Law B is best for Country B, there's no hypocrisy in criticizing a change in Country A's laws but keeping silent about the unchanged laws for Country B.

This explains Mexican illegal aliens in the U.S. not pointing out Mexico's Draconian immigration laws because....?

Because Mexico's immigration laws are completely irrelevant to their situation?

But why would Hispanic SB-1070 protestors carry the Mexican flag if they were not proud of their native country, that has these Draconian immigration laws?

I've proudly displayed and even marched in a parade under the flag of the nation my great-grandparents came from, but I sure as hell don't want the laws of the US to be altered to match theirs.

In other words, being proud of your native country and ancestral culture does not mean you want your current home to be exactly like your old home in every detail.

That is, in fact, why they're here and not there in the first place.

Comparing Mexico's immigration laws to the U.S. laws is not high on the list of things to do for the lame stream media. Why wouldn't the SB-1070 protestors not want to speak out against Mexico's Draconian immigration laws?

Because those laws didn't affect them when they lived in Mexico, and don't affect them now that they live here?

Tell me, Cicero: how often are you concerned about the laws governing, say, the process to become a naturalized US citizen?

None of them left Mexico because they despised their country's immigration laws?

So, this means that if you don't like the immigration laws of the US, you're planning to move to Canada, right?

Were they not allowed to protest these laws when they were in Mexico? If not. Why not protest about them in the U.S.?

Because they're more concerned with the laws of their country of current residence that actually affect them, and a wee bit less concerned with the laws of a country they don't live in and that didn't apply to them even when they did live there?

[ANTPogo]

You mean the people who support 1070?

Yes you are right, but mexico is complaining about them

That makes them unhappy, and quite possibly wrong.

It doesn't (necessarily) make them hypocrites, though.

[Dr. Keith]

why not substitute Mexico's immigration laws for those of the U.S. and Canada.

Becuase we already have a pretty good set of rules and we don't just change our laws when some hypocrite across the border loses his temper. We have a far more deliberate process for enacting laws. See School House Rock Episode "I'm just a bill."

But that is blatantly obvious, so it can't really be your question, if you in fact have a question. Assuming there is a question, it is more likely "why should I have to listen to Calderon when his country has far more barbaric laws?"

Of course that question you already answered: you don't have to.

But really, you don't have a question. You just want to point out the hypocrisy and you used a poor rhetorical vehicle that is now spinning out of control. That works better on TV. No audience participation.

[johnny karate]

Nobody is being asked to account for Calderón's blatant hypocrisy, not even Calderón himself. The question being posed is why not substitute Mexico's immigration laws for those of the U.S. and Canada. They must be morally, ethically, and legally superior since those who criticize SB 1070 have nothing derogatory to say about Mexico's immigration laws.

Why would someone who doesn't live in Mexico care about their immigration laws?

[Ziggurat]

Why would someone who doesn't live in Mexico care about their immigration laws?

Why would someone (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5898868#post5898868) who doesn't live in the US care about our immigration laws?

[funk de fino]

The EU doesn't have open borders or open immigration. So... fail.

So a Frenchman cannot travel into Germany with no passport and take up residence and a job there?

[johnny karate]

Why would someone (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5898868#post5898868) who doesn't live in the US care about our immigration laws?

I suppose you'd have to ask him.

[Ziggurat]

So a Frenchman cannot travel into Germany with no passport and take up residence and a job there?

Perhaps a Frenchman can. A Turk or a Moroccan (for example) cannot. The EU does not have open borders or open immigration. I'm surprised to see anyone try to claim otherwise.

[Cicero]

The US and Mexico are different, Cicero. Laws that work for the US do not necessarily work for Mexico, because (as I pointed out to you already) vastly different histories and patterns of immigration, founding principles, and Constitutional guidelines.

Then why doesn't Calderón respect the U.S. immigration laws?

I was taking issue with your one-immigration-policy-fits-all stance, without which you have no grounds to call Calderon a hypocrite.

Huh? Calderón is the one who has a problem with the U.S.'s customized immigration laws.

If there were one Perfect Set of Immigration Laws that would be appropriate for all countries, no matter their history or culture or sociopolitical underpinnings, then you might have a point.

So we should just except imperfection in immigration laws? OK

But if Immigration Law A is best for Country A, and Immigration Law B is best for Country B, there's no hypocrisy in criticizing a change in Country A's laws but keeping silent about the unchanged laws for Country B.

Explain how Mexico's immigration law is best for them and why enforced U.S. immigration laws are not best for the U.S?



Because Mexico's immigration laws are completely irrelevant to their situation?

That is what Guatemalans believed as well, until they crossed the Mexican border and became illegal aliens.


I've proudly displayed and even marched in a parade under the flag of the nation my great-grandparents came from, but I sure as hell don't want the laws of the US to be altered to match theirs.

A parade is not a protest.

In other words, being proud of your native country and ancestral culture does not mean you want your current home to be exactly like your old home in every detail.

Well, that's odd. They were not ashamed of their former country's immigration laws that are far more Draconian than the U.S., but they celebrate their former country in a protest about immigration laws. How do you know they don't want the U.S. to adopt Mexico's immigration laws? Have you seen any media ask them that question at the protests?


That is, in fact, why they're here and not there in the first place.

Really? I thought it was because Mexico has no use for their own hard-working population? Which is odd considering that Article 34, the one that states that "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" doesn't explain how they will manage to do what apparently their own citizens are not given the opportunity to do.

Because those laws didn't affect them when they lived in Mexico, and don't affect them now that they live here?

Didn't Mexicans while in Mexico have any sympathy for Guatemalans trying to enter their country without the proper documents? Why didn't those laws affect Mexicans then living in Mexico? Because they were not in the country illegally?

Tell me, Cicero: how often are you concerned about the laws governing, say, the process to become a naturalized US citizen?

Start a thread on the process to become a naturalized citizen. This thread is about why Mexico's immigration laws are fine for the majority of Mexicans, but not for their Southern neighbors, and why U.S. immigration laws are fine with the majority of Americans, but not with our Southern neighbors.

So, this means that if you don't like the immigration laws of the US, you're planning to move to Canada, right?

Would that be a legal immigration to Canada or illegal? You mean the current federal U.S. immigration laws that are based on our "histories and patterns of immigration, founding principles, and Constitutional guidelines?" You don't have a problem with those laws, do you? Or is it just when those laws are enforced you cry foul?


Because they're more concerned with the laws of their country of current residence that actually affect them, and a wee bit less concerned with the laws of a country they don't live in and that didn't apply to them even when they did live there?


So their outrage is born out of selfishness, not principle?

[funk de fino]

Perhaps a Frenchman can. A Turk or a Moroccan (for example) cannot. The EU does not have open borders or open immigration. I'm surprised to see anyone try to claim otherwise.

Internally they do for other EU members citizens. You are wrong and moving goalposts. If Turkey fully join the EU then a Turk can indeed do what you say he cannot.

[Ziggurat]

Internally they do for other EU members citizens. You are wrong and moving goalposts.

No, funk, YOU moved the goalpost because you didn't understand my claim to begin with. They DO NOT have open immigration with other countries, and are not even considering it. The fact that it works internally among a select group of relatively prosperous countries doesn't mean it can work in general, even for those same countries. Mexico would not qualify for membership in the EU regardless of geography. If you stuck an EU state next to Mexico, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell they would even consider open immigration with Mexico. The EU does not, is not considering, and will never have, open immigration from outside the EU into the EU.

If Turkey fully join the EU then a Turk can indeed do what you say he cannot.

Which is one of the reasons many people within the EU don't want Turkey admitted. I didn't mention them by accident, funk, but I'm not surprised you missed the point.

[funk de fino]

No, funk, YOU moved the goalpost because you didn't understand my claim to begin with. They DO NOT have open immigration with other countries, and are not even considering it. The fact that it works internally among a select group of relatively prosperous countries doesn't mean it can work in general, even for those same countries.

No, you were being arsey and wrong about someone elses claim. You missed their point and tried to be snarkey while being wrong.


Mexico would not qualify for membership in the EU regardless of geography. If you stuck an EU state next to Mexico, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell they would even consider open immigration with Mexico. The EU does not, is not considering, and will never have, open immigration from outside the EU into the EU.

I seriously do not know what kind of delusion makes you post crap like that?

Which is one of the reasons many people within the EU don't want Turkey admitted. I didn't mention them by accident, funk, but I'm not surprised you missed the point.

Many people? I am not missing the point, you are. By kilometers.

[Ziggurat]

No, you were being arsey and wrong about someone elses claim. You missed their point and tried to be snarkey while being wrong.

I didn't miss the point at all. Rather, you continue to. The point NoScotsman tried to make is that EU countries allow open immigration from other EU countries. But that's of little relevance, since they don't allow open immigration from other countries, especially very poor countries. No rich country does. And the open immigration between EU countries works does not, contra his suggestion, indicate that it can or will work in general. That was the important issue, and your objections to my point (which really amount to nothing more than a semantic objection that "open immigration" can mean only open between select countries, rather than a general policy) have absolutely no bearing on that question. But go ahead, call me snarky while you try to defend an irrelevant semantic point.

I seriously do not know what kind of delusion makes you post crap like that?

And yet, you can say nothing to refute any of it. Not only did you fail to say why I'm wrong, you didn't even say what I'm wrong about.

And I'm the snarky one? Please. You're pathetic.

Oh, but that was snark on my part. I'm so sorry. Ooops, I did it again.

[dtugg]

I would love to know how having open borders with Mexico would be good for security.

[Ziggurat]

I would love to know how having open borders with Mexico would be good for security.

Me too. I've asked for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Nobody is being asked to account for Calderón's blatant hypocrisy, not even Calderón himself. The question being posed is why not substitute Mexico's immigration laws for those of the U.S. and Canada. They must be morally, ethically, and legally superior since those who criticize SB 1070 have nothing derogatory to say about Mexico's immigration laws.

Tu quoque

[dtugg]

Let's see.

Good for security:

????????

Bad for security:

Anybody in the world who wanted to could come into the US via Mexico easily and hassle free. I doubt very much that border security in Mexico is tight at all, plus it is very easy to bribe officials there.

[Cicero]

Why would someone who doesn't live in Mexico care about their immigration laws?

Why would someone who doesn't live in the U.S. care about their immigration laws?

[johnny karate]

Why would someone who doesn't live in the U.S. care about their immigration laws?

So it's a dodge, then? Okay. I'll leave you to your ridiculous straw man of a thread. Have fun.

[Richard Masters]

Since Mexican President Calderón says that Arizona's new immigration law "opens the door to intolerance, hate, and discrimination," perhaps the United States should adopt his country's immigration laws?

Mexico's 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)


Wrong. This article has been annulled.


• Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico
instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

This article has also been annulled.


• Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be
deported. (Article 126)

• 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)

This was amended in 2008. No prison. Only a fine.


• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

Mexico’s Main Immigration Law

• 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)

• 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 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 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).

No. Articles 119, 120 and 121 were eliminated in 2008.

[Cicero]

Becuase we already have a pretty good set of rules and we don't just change our laws when some hypocrite across the border loses his temper. We have a far more deliberate process for enacting laws. See School House Rock Episode "I'm just a bill."

We have a deliberate process for enforcing federal laws as well, except when the feds refuse to enforce their own laws, the process is undermined.
See School House Rock Episode "The Great American Melting Pot" about legal immigration.

But that is blatantly obvious, so it can't really be your question, if you in fact have a question. Assuming there is a question, it is more likely "why should I have to listen to Calderon when his country has far more barbaric laws?"


Of course that question you already answered: you don't have to.

Does that also apply to the U.S. Congress on May 19, when Calderón will lecture them about U.S. immigration law?


But really, you don't have a question. You just want to point out the hypocrisy and you used a poor rhetorical vehicle that is now spinning out of control. That works better on TV. No audience participation.

Thank you for your participation in spinning out of control.

[WildCat]

I would love to know how having open borders with Mexico would be good for security.

Me too. I've asked for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming.
Step 1: Open border to anyone who wants to come
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Security!

[Cicero]

Wrong. This article has been annulled.



This article has also been annulled.



This was amended in 2008. No prison. Only a fine.



No. Articles 119, 120 and 121 were eliminated in 2008.

Let's examine Mexico's immigration laws with the 2008 updates. Does this now make it OK to adopt it for all members of NAFTA?

Mexico's General Law on Population says:

• Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be
deported. (Article 126)


• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

Mexico’s Main Immigration Law

• 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)

• 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 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 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)

[Richard Masters]

Let's examine Mexico's immigration laws with the 2008 updates. Does this now make it OK to adopt it for all members of NAFTA?

Mexico's General Law on Population says:

• Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be
deported. (Article 126)


• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

Mexico’s Main Immigration Law

• 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)

• 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 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 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)

You can strike 118. It was amended to be only a fine.

[Richard Masters]

Except for Articles 32, 34, and 37 from the Mexican Constitution, I think it's all comparable.

My position on the Arizona law is that it simply mimics federal law, and therefore it's fine. Those people who oppose it should be more concerned about the federal laws it is based on.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I, for one, say open up the borders in the Americas. It's good for business. It's good for human rights. It's good for human relations. It's good for security.

I call troll.

[funk de fino]

I didn't miss the point at all. Rather, you continue to. The point NoScotsman tried to make is that EU countries allow open immigration from other EU countries. But that's of little relevance, since they don't allow open immigration from other countries, especially very poor countries. No rich country does. And the open immigration between EU countries works does not, contra his suggestion, indicate that it can or will work in general. That was the important issue, and your objections to my point (which really amount to nothing more than a semantic objection that "open immigration" can mean only open between select countries, rather than a general policy) have absolutely no bearing on that question. But go ahead, call me snarky while you try to defend an irrelevant semantic point.

His point was that we had no open borders and no open immigration previously in Europe and that we changed it so we did have those internally. This did not cause meltdown of society. You then made a claim that there as no open borders or open immigration in the EU. There is. You are wrong. If you were posting about something else then you should have pointed this out and not replied to a post that you did not understand. If you understood his point you would not have posted what you did and would have clarified it. Your original claim was wrong, it is not semantics to point out your failure.

And yet, you can say nothing to refute any of it. Not only did you fail to say why I'm wrong, you didn't even say what I'm wrong about.

And I'm the snarky one? Please. You're pathetic.

Oh, but that was snark on my part. I'm so sorry. Ooops, I did it again.

I am from the EU, I do not know anyone who has ever said to me that they do not want Turkey to join the EU because of all the immigrants. Why don't you source your claim? I have not seen it mentioned in the UK election debates or coverage. How many europeans have you spoken to who have told you this is the reason?

Let's just see your post again.

The EU doesn't have open borders or open immigration. So... fail.

Snarkiness, arrogance and completely wrong. Clarify it and move goalposts and you may have a point, but still snarky and arrogant.

[funk de fino]

Anybody in the world who wanted to could come into the US via Mexico easily and hassle free. I doubt very much that border security in Mexico is tight at all, plus it is very easy to bribe officials there.

It was not much different than the US when I went in there a few weeks ago. No fingerprints but pretty much the same and I didnt try bribery. Probably not a good idea if you want to stay under the radar eh?

[DC]

if only the people actually had a say in that :)

[dtugg]

It was not much different than the US when I went in there a few weeks ago.

I assume you have a real passport, went through customs, and visited for a legitimate reason.

No fingerprints but pretty much the same and I didnt try bribery.

Why would you try bribery?

Probably not a good idea if you want to stay under the radar eh?

In the United States, absolutely not. In Mexico though, if you are doing something you are not supposed to be doing, paying a bribe is a very good way of getting someone to look the other way. I once bribed a cop in Mexico for $100. If I tried that in the US, I would undoubtedly end up with a felony charge.

[funk de fino]

I assume you have a real passport, went through customs, and visited for a legitimate reason.

Yes, and if I didnt I would not have gotten in.

Why would you try bribery?

Why would anyone if they were up to something at a border entry? This is not trying to get out of a speeding ticket is it?

In the United States, absolutely not. In Mexico though, if you are doing something you are not supposed to be doing, paying a bribe is a very good way of getting someone to look the other way. I once bribed a cop in Mexico for $100. If I tried that in the US, I would undoubtedly end up with a felony charge.

See above. If you are a security risk then bribery is a no go at the border is it not? Or are you saying there are more holes in the Mexico border for sneaking in than there are for the US? Not the legitimate entry points.

[Ziggurat]

His point was that we had no open borders and no open immigration previously in Europe and that we changed it so we did have those internally. This did not cause meltdown of society.

Because it was only internal. That makes all the difference in the world.

You then made a claim that there as no open borders or open immigration in the EU.

No, funk. You have the sequence of events wrong. I first claimed nobody had open borders. From the beginning I meant no country has open borders or open immigration with everybody, not that no country has open borders or open immigration with anybody. NoTrueScottsman responded to my claim, trying to refute it with the example of the EU. But the EU doesn't qualify. Should I have been more explicit about what I meant? Perhaps. Does what he said or your response actually have any bearing on what I meant? Nope, not in the least. But it was NoTrueScottsman, not me, who tried to change the meaning of my words, it wasn't me trying to change the meaning of his words.

I am from the EU, I do not know anyone who has ever said to me that they do not want Turkey to join the EU because of all the immigrants. Why don't you source your claim?

OK.
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=32_0_4_0
"Former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing said that Turkey should not be admitted to the EU, and Josef Joffe, editor of the German weekly Die Zeit, said Giscard d'Estaing spoke for many Europeans, who fear that thousands of Turks would pour in, searching for jobs and driving wages down."
http://www.egmontinstitute.be/papers/06/eu/EU-Turkey.pdf
"If migration flows from Turkey are similar to those anticipated from the new EU MS from Central and Eastern Europe, then flows of around 225 000 a year could be anticipated, with a long run eventual stock of about 2.9 million migrants.
...
If substantial and uncontrolled, it could lead to disturbances in the EU labour market.

As a preventive measure, the Commission is considering transitional provisions. In order to avoid serious disturbances on the EU labour market, it could also consider a permanent safeguard clause providing for the possibility of suspending, if required, the full application of the provisions on the free movement of workers."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,333126,00.html
"First comes the favorite of politicians and polemics everywhere: Integration. Does Turkey fit into the club? The open border that would allow people to travel between Turkey and any other EU nation might not only lead to a massive immigration as people leave Turkey to look for jobs in the stronger economies of the West, but would allow Turkey to exert a huge cultural influence over Europe as well. In a recent poll by the Turkish Gallup Institute, 23 percent of Turkish workers asked said they would move to Western Europe countries if part of the EU."

I'm sure I could find more, but I think that will do for the moment to demonstrate that it's a rather serious concern for many Europeans, even if it isn't for you.

I have not seen it mentioned in the UK election debates or coverage.

Yeah, well, the UK doesn't represent all of Europe.

Snarkiness, arrogance and completely wrong. Clarify it and move goalposts and you may have a point, but still snarky and arrogant.

Boo friggin' hoo. Grow a skin, funk.

[Ziggurat]

Step 1: Open border to anyone who wants to come
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Security!

Good call. It really is like putting the underpants gnomes in charge of homeland security.

[Richard Masters]

In the United States, absolutely not. In Mexico though, if you are doing something you are not supposed to be doing, paying a bribe is a very good way of getting someone to look the other way. I once bribed a cop in Mexico for $100. If I tried that in the US, I would undoubtedly end up with a felony charge.

Wow, you paid too much! :D

[Cicero]

See above. If you are a security risk then bribery is a no go at the border is it not? Or are you saying there are more holes in the Mexico border for sneaking in than there are for the US? Not the legitimate entry points.

Doesn't the BBC inform you about where most of the illegal aliens cross into the U.S.? The fact that 70% of the illegal alien population in the U.S. are comprised of Mexicans, their entry points should be obvious, even to you.

[lomiller]

My position on the Arizona law is that it simply mimics federal law, and therefore it's fine. Those people who oppose it should be more concerned about the federal laws it is based on.

The objection is that it’s vague and could easily be interpreted much more broadly then the federal law. In fact if this isn’t the intent then the new law is pointless because it doesn’t add anything new. It therefore seems reasonable that the intent of the Arizona law is for it to go beyond what the federal law already does.

[Cicero]

The objection is that it’s vague and could easily be interpreted much more broadly then the federal law. In fact if this isn’t the intent then the new law is pointless because it doesn’t add anything new. It therefore seems reasonable that the intent of the Arizona law is for it to go beyond what the federal law already does.

No. The intent is to get the U.S. Federal Government to enforce the laws already on the books. Since the feds abdicated their responsibility for preventing illegal aliens to enter the U.S., particularly on the Southern border, and then not aggressively apprehend and deport those that are in the U.S. illegally, AZ had no other option but to take control of their local situation.

[Chupacabras]

Wow, you paid too much! :D

You took the words out of my mouth!

IMO, Calderón is so critical of sb1070 because of revenues being lost. He and all of the voices on this side of the border are calling this an "anti-mexican" Law.

OTOH, about a month ago Calderón's administration put in effect a law that requires every cell-phone user to register in person. At the very same time, the Governor of Sonora (neighbor to AZ and one of the most vociferous against sb1070) is raiding illegally imported cars as we speak. Funny, because that is of Federal competence, and his arguments are word by word the same used in AZ in favor of sb1070.

Finally, please stop calling MX corrupt: the one paying a bribe is also corrupt; and if someone knows of corrupt officials, then *I cannot* blow the whistle for them.

[Richard Masters]

The objection is that it’s vague and could easily be interpreted much more broadly then the federal law. In fact if this isn’t the intent then the new law is pointless because it doesn’t add anything new. It therefore seems reasonable that the intent of the Arizona law is for it to go beyond what the federal law already does.

No. The intent is to get the U.S. Federal Government to enforce the laws already on the books. Since the feds abdicated their responsibility for preventing illegal aliens to enter the U.S., particularly on the Southern border, and then not aggressively apprehend and deport those that are in the U.S. illegally, AZ had no other option but to take control of their local situation.

I agree with Cicero on this one. It's intended to enforce the laws that are already in place.

[Chupacabras]

Let's examine Mexico's immigration laws with the 2008 updates. Does this now make it OK to adopt it for all members of NAFTA?

I don't think there's any useful purpose on all this. Check Canada's immigration laws and they also want "useful" immigrants that can support themselves, etc... You have to score a certain amount of "points" which rank differently according to your profession, age and other factors. Also, depending on your intended place of residence, you are required to have a specific minimum amount of money in your personal bank account.

In regard to this particular thread, I "perceive" one of the most controversial points of AZ's sb1070 is the fact that it allows State or local officials to perform Federal duties. Although I have an opinion, I have no comment on whether that is ok or not.

[Dr. Keith]

We have a deliberate process for enforcing federal laws as well, except when the feds refuse to enforce their own laws, the process is undermined.
See School House Rock Episode "The Great American Melting Pot" about legal immigration.

And we should look to Calderon to see how we should fix this?

I still don't see how copying Mexican laws is the best solution. Seems downright un-American, if I can use that to mean un-United Statesian.

Does that also apply to the U.S. Congress on May 19, when Calderón will lecture them about U.S. immigration law?

Yes. Or are you unaware of that august body's long history of ignoring people who speak before it? You know, they may even bring up the point you were trying to make.

BTW, both Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry have also stated that they are uncomfortable with the AZ law. So, I'm not so sure that there is widespread support even among the right wing of US politicians. But you think only people who come from states with more liberal laws can complain? Odd position.

Thank you for your participation in spinning out of control.

Look, you had a point to make (Calderon is a hypocrite) but instead phrased it as a stupid question (why shouldn't we just use Mexico's immigration law?).

The answers were too obvious and you lost grip of the rhetoric from the start. I doubt this will lead anywhere productive, despite some other posters' best efforts.

[funk de fino]

Because it was only internal. That makes all the difference in the world.

Christ, you really are that dumb. There were no open borders and there were immigration controls before the EU agreements. Now they have opened up society has not fallen apart.

No, funk. You have the sequence of events wrong. I first claimed nobody had open borders.

You replied to NoScotsman (you cannot even get his name right) there were no open borders in the EU. You are wrong.

From the beginning I meant no country has open borders or open immigration with everybody, not that no country has open borders or open immigration with anybody.

Yet, thats not what your posts said.

NoTrueScottsman responded to my claim, trying to refute it with the example of the EU. But the EU doesn't qualify. Should I have been more explicit about what I meant? Perhaps. Does what he said or your response actually have any bearing on what I meant? Nope, not in the least. But it was NoTrueScottsman, not me, who tried to change the meaning of my words, it wasn't me trying to change the meaning of his words.

Wrong sequence of events. Try again. Read your very first post again carefully.

Yes, the example does qualify. The EU has countries that previously had controls between themselves and who now dont. Like Mexico could have with the US in the hypothetical situation discussed. He gave you an example of how it has been made to work.

OK.
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=32_0_4_0
"Former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing said that Turkey should not be admitted to the EU, and Josef Joffe, editor of the German weekly Die Zeit, said Giscard d'Estaing spoke for many Europeans, who fear that thousands of Turks would pour in, searching for jobs and driving wages down."

Where are your polls? Former presidents from countries who are banning burqas does not wash. Linkie not work.


http://www.egmontinstitute.be/papers/06/eu/EU-Turkey.pdf
"If migration flows from Turkey are similar to those anticipated from the new EU MS from Central and Eastern Europe, then flows of around 225 000 a year could be anticipated, with a long run eventual stock of about 2.9 million migrants.
...
If substantial and uncontrolled, it could lead to disturbances in the EU labour market. As a preventive measure, the Commission is considering transitional provisions. In order to avoid serious disturbances on the EU labour market, it could also consider a permanent safeguard clause providing for the possibility of suspending, if required, the full application of the provisions on the free movement of workers."

Coulda shoulda woulda. Who wrote that piece?


http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,333126,00.html
"First comes the favorite of politicians and polemics everywhere: Integration. Does Turkey fit into the club? The open border that would allow people to travel between Turkey and any other EU nation might not only lead to a massive immigration as people leave Turkey to look for jobs in the stronger economies of the West, but would allow Turkey to exert a huge cultural influence over Europe as well. In a recent poll by the Turkish Gallup Institute, 23 percent of Turkish workers asked said they would move to Western Europe countries if part of the EU."

Opinion piece from Germany.

"In 10 years, Turkey won't be the same Turkey as today ... and certain fears that exist today can be put aside," said European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, speaking to a French television station on Wednesday. Turkey's membership, he added, "would be very positive for Europe."

I would also check the dates on your pieces.

I'm sure I could find more, but I think that will do for the moment to demonstrate that it's a rather serious concern for many Europeans, even if it isn't for you.

Figures? Is it many or most or a few?

Yeah, well, the UK doesn't represent all of Europe.

Another strawman. Yet if it was such a problem it would be mentioned eh?

Boo friggin' hoo. Grow a skin, funk.

Ironic.

[funk de fino]

Doesn't the BBC inform you about where most of the illegal aliens cross into the U.S.? The fact that 70% of the illegal alien population in the U.S. are comprised of Mexicans, their entry points should be obvious, even to you.

Completely missed the point of my post. It's about getting into Mexico not out. Try again. Fail (as Zigg would say)

[Ziggurat]

Christ, you really are that dumb. There were no open borders and there were immigration controls before the EU agreements. Now they have opened up society has not fallen apart.

They still have border and immigration control, funk. Not between each other, but certainly between them and the poor countries outside the EU. And in regards to the US and Mexico, that matters a hell of a lot more. Can you figure out why, funk?

Yet, thats not what your posts said.

Wow. You proved I was insufficiently clear in my initial post. Congratulations. Now, does ANYTHING you have posted indicate in ANY way that open immigration from Mexico to the US would work? Because if it doesn't, well, you have no point worth further consideration.

[funk de fino]

They still have border and immigration control, funk. Not between each other, but certainly between them and the poor countries outside the EU. And in regards to the US and Mexico, that matters a hell of a lot more. Can you figure out why, funk?

Yes, they do, it is nothing to do with poor, unless the USA is also poor? So the US and Mexico and Canada could all do the same.

Wow. You proved I was insufficiently clear in my initial post. Congratulations. Now, does ANYTHING you have posted indicate in ANY way that open immigration from Mexico to the US would work? Because if it doesn't, well, you have no point worth further consideration.

I proved you lied about our first post. I never thought it would work, I never claimed it would work. I pulled you up for false claims and when caught with your hand in the cookie jar you now want to hark back to the OP. Thanks for admitting your mistake.

PS - Can you prove that it wouldnt work?

[pipelineaudio]

So the point is, since the EU allows travel within its member states and the USA allows travel within its member states, then the USA should allow open borders to other countries and the EU should not?

[funk de fino]

So the point is, since the EU allows travel within its member states and the USA allows travel within its member states, then the USA should allow open borders to other countries and the EU should not?

No, whats the matter with you people?

[lomiller]

I agree with Cicero on this one. It's intended to enforce the laws that are already in place.


enforcing existing laws by making new ones that say the same thing doesn't make sense.

[pipelineaudio]

enforcing existing laws by making new ones that say the same thing doesn't make sense.

Tell that to the gun control nuts

[Cicero]

enforcing existing laws by making new ones that say the same thing doesn't make sense.

But the existing federal immigration laws were not being enforced by the feds. AZ needed to pass SB-1070 to give their police the authority to do what the feds refuse to do. you seem to have trouble distinguishing between the federal government and local governments.

[Dr. Keith]

But the existing federal immigration laws were not being enforced by the feds.

At least not to the satisfaction of the state of AZ.

AZ needed to pass SB-1070 to give their police the authority to do what the feds refuse to do.

Really? That is the only solution? I don't even think it is among the top three solutions I would want my state to consider, much less the only.

you seem to have trouble distinguishing between the federal government and local governments.

No, I think we all have that under control. It is just that when a state thinks the fed has dropped the ball there are several means for communicating this failing. Passing a law that attempts to usurp a federal power does not seem the best approach.

[Cicero]

At least not to the satisfaction of the state of AZ.

"A Gallup poll concludes that more than three-quarters of Americans have heard about Arizona's new immigration law, and of these, 51 percent say they favor it and 39 percent oppose it."


Really? That is the only solution? I don't even think it is among the top three solutions I would want my state to consider, much less the only.

Is the state you reside in even a border state with Mexico?


No, I think we all have that under control. It is just that when a state thinks the fed has dropped the ball there are several means for communicating this failing. Passing a law that attempts to usurp a federal power does not seem the best approach.


Do you really think that the current and past President administrations were unaware of the out of control illegal immigration into Arizona? What are you talking about? The fed did drop the ball. That is not even in dispute.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, they do, it is nothing to do with poor, unless the USA is also poor?

Well, you're wrong. Membership in the EU is based not only on geography, but also on economics (among other things). They exclude poor countries for being poor. It's in the official accession criteria. I'm surprised I need to tell you this.

I never thought it would work, I never claimed it would work.

Then you have no point of any relevance, except to try to badger me. Pathetic. But I've come to expect that from you. You seem to have nothing to contribute to this debate of any actual substance.

[funk de fino]

Well, you're wrong. Membership in the EU is based not only on geography, but also on economics (among other things). They exclude poor countries for being poor. It's in the official accession criteria. I'm surprised I need to tell you this.

It is not whether they are poor. The US is rich we do not have open border with them. The UK is not poor and we do not have an open border with the rest of the EU. Once again an ignorant blanket statement has led you to make a silly claim. Greece is very very poor at the moment. I guess we close the borders?


Then you have no point of any relevance, except to try to badger me. Pathetic. But I've come to expect that from you. You seem to have nothing to contribute to this debate of any actual substance.

I can contribute to things by showing someone who is making false claims and then lying about it afterwards. It will remind them they can probably ignore most of what you say in future.

Can you prove it wouldnt work?

[Ziggurat]

It is not whether they are poor.

Yes, actually, it is. That's not the only criteria for accession, but it is one of them. Again, why am I having to tell you about such basic facts?

The US is rich we do not have open border with them.

No EU country has an open border with any non-EU country, and no poor countries are allowed entry into the EU. So damned straight being poor keeps the border closed.

Greece is very very poor at the moment.

No, it is not. The government is bankrupt. There is a difference, though perhaps you have trouble grasping it.

I can contribute to things by showing someone who is making false claims and then lying about it afterwards.

No, actually, you can't. All you can do is misrepresent my position.

[Richard Masters]

enforcing existing laws by making new ones that say the same thing doesn't make sense.

Why not?

[Dr. Keith]

"A Gallup poll concludes that more than three-quarters of Americans have heard about Arizona's new immigration law, and of these, 51 percent say they favor it and 39 percent oppose it."

Polls in bold are more valid? Maybe we should get more of these and just hang up that whole election thing.

Is the state you reside in even a border state with Mexico?

Yes, not that it matters, and our governor disagrees with yours. Interestingly, this is the first time I have agreed with him. He also shoots coyotes while out jogging with his dog. What a douche.

Do you really think that the current and past President administrations were unaware of the out of control illegal immigration into Arizona?

I believe they knew and they have been working on different solutions. I do not believe they ever abandoned the border and said "you guys just take care of it."

What are you talking about?

Federalism. Some arenas are federal others are left to the the sates. Immigration is federal. You have representatives in the federal government. One of them almost became president. Use them.

The fed did drop the ball. That is not even in dispute.

No, you are right there is no dispute at all. Just lots of people in different levels of agreeing with you.

/sarcasm

[Ziggurat]

Federalism. Some arenas are federal others are left to the the sates. Immigration is federal.

The current Arizona law doesn't actually remove any power from the federal government, so this is a weak argument to make. Furthermore, there's some historical irony to it. Federal hate crime legislation was born from the failure of certain states to enforce their own laws. Crimes like murder are properly the arena of states, but the feds stepped in when the states failed. Now that the feds are failing, why can't a state step in, especially since they're doing so in a way which (unlike federal hate crime legislation) doesn't actually supersede federal authority?

[Praktik]

Where's the analysis of the change to Canada's immigration laws here?

The OP talks about all of NAFTA maybe adopting mexico's laws, but there's no recap of current Canadian law and the way Mexican laws differ...

In any event, not sure Canada's problems are the same as Americas or that our laws are in as dire need of change as the American laws are percieved to be.

[Cicero]

Really? That is the only solution? I don't even think it is among the top three solutions I would want my state to consider, much less the only.


Texas Governor Perry has the same complaint with the feds that Brewer does. Maybe they should be asking you for solutions since the federal government has turned a deaf ear to Perry as well as Brewer.

"Securing the border has to be a top priority, which is why I have a standing request with the federal government for 1,000 Title 32 National Guardsmen who can support civilian law enforcement efforts to enhance border security in Texas. I have also requested predator drones be based in and operate over the Texas-Mexico border to provide essential information about criminal activity to law enforcement on the ground.

Until the federal government brings the necessary resources to bear, we will continue to commit state funding and resources for additional border security efforts in order to protect our communities and legitimate cross border trade and travel, while enforcing the laws already on the books."

[QUOTE=Dr. Keith;5909497]Polls in bold are more valid? Maybe we should get more of these and just hang up that whole election thing.

It is in bold because it is a quote. You seem to be more concerned with the bolding rather than the information that contradicts your notion that it is only the majority of Arizona legal residents who support 1070.


Yes, not that it matters, and our governor disagrees with yours. Interestingly, this is the first time I have agreed with him. He also shoots coyotes while out jogging with his dog. What a douche.


"I fully recognize and support a state's right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas." Gov. Perry

Perry managed to neither praise nor condemn Brewer and SB-1070, while simultaneously not incurring the wrath of his Hispanic electorate.

I believe they knew and they have been working on different solutions. I do not believe they ever abandoned the border and said "you guys just take care of it."

Sure they work on "different solutions," but the only one they want to implement is Comprehensive Immigration Reform," which is code for amnesty. Considering that there are 500,000 illegal aliens in Arizona with the supposed help of the federal government enforcing border security, I doubt Arizona can afford any more of that kind of assistance.


Federalism. Some arenas are federal others are left to the sates. Immigration is federal. You have representatives in the federal government. One of them almost became president. Use them.

McCain is part of the problem, not the solution. McCain has had 24 years in the Senate to represent Arizona on this issue. His solution for the last 23 of those years was to implement the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," which is code for amnesty. Anymore bright ideas?


No, you are right there is no dispute at all. Just lots of people in different levels of agreeing with you.

/sarcasm

Perhaps you could produce a Governor of a border state with Mexico who believes the federal government is responding to their problems with illegal immigration? Hint: Don't bother to check with your state's governor, you wouldn't like his answer.

[carlitos]

Why not apply the US Constitution to the whole planet?

[Cicero]

Why not apply the US Constitution to the whole planet?

The whole planet? Hell, we couldn't even get our neighbor to the North to go along with the 1st Amendment.

[carlitos]

Then perhaps you could explain the logic of your original post?

[Cicero]

Then perhaps you could explain the logic of your original post?


One might as well wonder why we don't adopt the UK's election laws, or Saudia Arabia's laws regarding religion.



When King Abdullah and Queen Elizabeth publically call our freedom of religion law and election law as being hateful, intolerant and discriminatory, you might actually have a valid analogy.



Your invalid analogy follows AntPogo's.

Calderón is appearing in front of the U.S. Congress to lecture Americans about how our immigration laws are hateful, intolerant and discriminatory. He hasn't gotten around to our Constitution, yet.

[funk de fino]

Yes, actually, it is. That's not the only criteria for accession, but it is one of them. Again, why am I having to tell you about such basic facts?

We do not have open borders with many rich countries.

No EU country has an open border with any non-EU country, and no poor countries are allowed entry into the EU. So damned straight being poor keeps the border closed.

Incorrect again.

No, it is not. The government is bankrupt. There is a difference, though perhaps you have trouble grasping it.

Epic fail. EU membership is not based on whether citizens are rich. It's about the economy. Greeces economy has tanked so I guess we close the borders?

No, actually, you can't. All you can do is misrepresent my position.

You lied about your first post in this thread. How sad.

[daenku32]

Your invalid analogy follows AntPogo's.

Calderón is appearing in front of the U.S. Congress to lecture Americans about how our immigration laws are hateful, intolerant and discriminatory. He hasn't gotten around to our Constitution, yet.

And us librs have to defend him because we don't like Arizona's draconian laws?

For the most part their laws are the same as ours. What we need is opening up more legal ways for people to go to both countries. Mexico has tremendous resources that can be just as beneficial to us as our job market is for Mexican workers.

[ANTPogo]

Your invalid analogy follows AntPogo's.

Sigh...

[Cicero]

And us librs have to defend him because we don't like Arizona's draconian laws?

Is the absence of libs condemning Calderón and Mexico's immigration laws the same as defending both?

For the most part their laws are the same as ours. What we need is opening up more legal ways for people to go to both countries. Mexico has tremendous resources that can be just as beneficial to us as our job market is for Mexican workers.

Why aren't Mexico's "tremendous resources" beneficial to Mexico's job market?

[Ziggurat]

We do not have open borders with many rich countries.

Indeed. Now, how does that contradict anything I said? Oh, that's right: it doesn't.

Epic fail. EU membership is not based on whether citizens are rich. It's about the economy.

What do you think I meant when I talked about rich countries, funk? Are you really this thick, or do you just pretend?

Greeces economy has tanked so I guess we close the borders?

Even with the current problems, their per capita GDP is still well over three times Mexico's. If it were to fall to Mexico's level, the other members of the EU might indeed start thinking about kicking them out. As it is, they're already considering getting Greece out of the Euro zone.

You lied about your first post in this thread.

No, funk. Rather, you persist in deliberately misinterpreting it even after I clarified what I meant. Kind of like your substitution of rich countries for rich citizens in this post. But keep up the personal attacks, since you've got no actual argument about the feasibility of open borders between rich countries and poor countries.

[Cicero]

Sigh...


I've proudly displayed and even marched in a parade under the flag of the nation my great-grandparents came from, but I sure as hell don't want the laws of the US to be altered to match theirs.


In between sighs, could you explain how this has any relevance to protestors demonstrating against SB-1020 while marching under the Mexican flag? The flag of a country whose current and enforced immigration laws are far more Draconian than the AZ law which is not even in effect.

[INRM]

Didn't NAFTA propose a constitution similar to the Mexican Constitution for the NAU? Considering the corruption in Mexico, this sounds very bad..

[funk de fino]

Indeed. Now, how does that contradict anything I said? Oh, that's right: it doesn't.

Think about it. Not all countries in the EU are rich.

What do you think I meant when I talked about rich countries, funk? Are you really this thick, or do you just pretend?

And strangely you fail to say what you meant? Clarify.

Even with the current problems, their per capita GDP is still well over three times Mexico's. If it were to fall to Mexico's level, the other members of the EU might indeed start thinking about kicking them out. As it is, they're already considering getting Greece out of the Euro zone.

Yet they have just bailed them out. Not closed borders or anything like that.

No, funk. Rather, you persist in deliberately misinterpreting it even after I clarified what I meant. Kind of like your substitution of rich countries for rich citizens in this post. But keep up the personal attacks, since you've got no actual argument about the feasibility of open borders between rich countries and poor countries.

You lied about what you said in your first post. Go back and read it and read what you claimed it said.

We have open borders between poor countries and rich countries in the EU. That why lots come to the UK.

[funk de fino]

First post

Not if you want even a moderate level of entitlements. Then it becomes unsustainable. A libertarian might argue that we shouldn't have much in the way of entitlements, but we do, and given that we're a democracy and most people want moderate entitlement spending, that's not going to change anytime soon. So we can't afford completely open borders. It's a recipe for fiscal disaster. We can allow more legal immigration than we do, but can't (and have no obligation to) accept unlimited immigration.

And I've got no idea why you think it's good for security.

Nothing about no-one having open borders.

No, funk. You have the sequence of events wrong. I first claimed nobody had open borders. From the beginning I meant no country has open borders or open immigration with everybody, not that no country has open borders or open immigration with anybody. NoTrueScottsman responded to my claim, trying to refute it with the example of the EU. But the EU doesn't qualify.

First bold - Not true
Second bold - Not true

Your first post did not mention a lack of countries with open borders it was in reply to Noscotsman claiming open borders were good. Your post was about how it was not good. Noscotsman replied impying the EU proved it could work. You then made your claim that they (anyone???) did not have open borders.

[ANTPogo]

In between sighs, could you explain how this has any relevance to protestors demonstrating against SB-1020 while marching under the Mexican flag? The flag of a country whose current and enforced immigration laws are far more Draconian than the AZ law which is not even in effect.

Considering I quoted that portion of your post that the above was a response to, it should be fairly easy for you to figure out what the relevance is.

But, just in case, here it is again. You said: "But why would Hispanic SB-1070 protesters carry the Mexican flag if they were not proud of their native country, that has these Draconian immigration laws?"

I, via a personal anecdote, replied that it's entirely possible for someone to be proud of the nation their ancestors came from, and even march under the flag of that nation, despite not supporting every single law currently in effect in said nation, and certainly not wishing for all those laws to be applied to the US.

If the government of the state where I currently reside had passed a law that I felt unfairly targeted descendants of people from the nation my great-grandparents came from, even if that nation had far worse laws in place, you can bet I'd be protesting that law here, waving the flag of the country where my great-grandparents were born.

Because I'm proud of my cultural and ethnic heritage, and even if I don't like everything that the rulers of my great-grandparents' home country are currently doing, I know that the actions of a government are not the actions of a people, and whatever dumb and/or bad things that government does has no bearing on how I feel about those people. And I definitely don't want the nation I've lived in since birth to take on the bad aspects of my ancestral country's laws, especially if I feel if it's targeting my people.

Does that make things clearer for you, Cicero?

[Cicero]

Considering I quoted that portion of your post that the above was a response to, it should be fairly easy for you to figure out what the relevance is.

But, just in case, here it is again. You said: "But why would Hispanic SB-1070 protesters carry the Mexican flag if they were not proud of their native country, that has these Draconian immigration laws?"

I, via a personal anecdote, replied that it's entirely possible for someone to be proud of the nation their ancestors came from, and even march under the flag of that nation, despite not supporting every single law currently in effect in said nation, and certainly not wishing for all those laws to be applied to the US.

But you said you marched in a "parade," not a protest, under the flag of your great-grandparents country of origin. Do you have an anecdote about a protest you marched in under the flag of a country that sets a much worse example of the thing you are protesting against than the country targeted in the protest?

[ANTPogo]

But you said you marched in a "parade," not a protest, under the flag of your great-grandparents country of origin. Do you have an anecdote about a protest you marched in under the flag of a country that sets a much worse example of the thing you are protesting against than the country targeted in the protest?

That's kind of irrelevant to your assertion that one can't stand up under the flag of a nation without supporting all the laws currently being enforced in that country.

But go on: tell me why marching under another country's flag in a parade dedicated to a lovefest for the culture and people and history and community of that other country perfectly okay (and apparently not indicative at all of a support for every single action and law in that other country and a desire to transform the US' laws into a carbon-copy of that other country's laws), while marching under another country's flag to protest against a US law you feel unfairly targets your ethnic group and cultural community (and incidentally makes the US' laws closer in spirit to those of your home country, not further away) somehow means you should be supporting every single action and law in that other country and wanting the US' laws to become like a carbon-copy of that other country's laws...or else you're a hypocrite whose opinions can be discounted?

[Cicero]

That's kind of irrelevant to your assertion that one can't stand up under the flag of a nation without supporting all the laws currently being enforced in that country.

But go on: tell me why marching under another country's flag in a parade dedicated to a lovefest for the culture and people and history and community of that other country perfectly okay (and apparently not indicative at all of a support for every single action and law in that other country and a desire to transform the US' laws into a carbon-copy of that other country's laws), while marching under another country's flag to protest against a US law you feel unfairly targets your ethnic group and cultural community (and incidentally makes the US' laws closer in spirit to those of your home country, not further away) somehow means you should be supporting every single action and law in that other country and wanting the US' laws to become like a carbon-copy of that other country's laws...or else you're a hypocrite whose opinions can be discounted?

So no personal anecdote. OK.

[ANTPogo]

So no personal anecdote. OK.

So you're just going to backpedal away from that?

[cienaños]

Even with the current problems, their per capita GDP is still well over three times Mexico's. If it were to fall to Mexico's level, the other members of the EU might indeed start thinking about kicking them out. As it is, they're already considering getting Greece out of the Euro zone.


Cute.