I think I’ve discovered a solution for immigration reform that will appeal to both the political left and right. After doing some research inspired by comments on my last post of this topic, I’ve found that the Mexican immigration law would suit what the political right feels are our nation’s needs perfectly! Furthermore, because it was penned by the very people that the left are claiming we are dissemination against, they would have to see it as fair? (Unless of course… they have a double standard? But that doesn’t happen in American politics. Justice is blind remember?)
These are the parts of Mexico’s immigration law I like:
Article 32: 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 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: 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 38: The Secretary of Governance may suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.
Article 73: 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.
Articles 85 and 86: A National Population Registry keeps track of every single individual who comprises the population of the country, and verifies each individual’s identity.
Article 91, 87: A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants, and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number
Article 116: Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned. 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 118: Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons
Articles 119, 120 and 121: Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison. Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working without a permit — can also be imprisoned.
So who else is with me? Let’s let Mexican law influence our nation for once!
May 21, 2010 at 11:27 pm
You can tell me to stop anytime…seriously.
This is worth reading.
In a nutshell: Mexico = very bad for human rights. Rapes (both woman and children), kidnappings with the help of police, theft, forced starvation, more theft, stonings, beatings, even more theft, and, of course, a good healthy share of murders. All of migrants passing through, and (the inherent corruptibility of humanity aside) all because migrants have no legal recourse to go to any authority.
That they still come is a testament to how great this country is.
At any rate, fashioning our laws after Mexico would be, in terms of human rights, like fashioning our economic policy after Greece. I realize there’s an argument to be made that says, “look, the things that happen to these migrants are awful, but they’re still breaking the laws, and you can’t pick and choose which laws you wish to obey.” I would put up against that the fact that we are holding terrorists to standards found in the Geneva Conventions concerning the rules of war (good thing…), even though technically speaking, they don’t apply. Nor did the terrorists agree to them beforehand. Our reason for applying the rules wasn’t legal; it was moral.
…
Also, I’m confused about articles 85 and 86 – isn’t that the kind of police state that most conservatives, myself included, want to avoid?
May 22, 2010 at 7:42 am
If the people or Mexico are unwilling/unable, scared, whatever, to try and reform their own country, and the human rights measures are deplorable, maybe more drastic measures have to be taken then. Based on how we’ve dealt with Human Rights issues in the past, it sounds like we should get the UN involved and try imposing sanctions?
In this argument, what do we do with all the people that don’t cross the border? They have those very same rights. What is needed is systemic change, and that won’t happen by just allowing people into our country.
May 23, 2010 at 1:13 am
I think we’re talking past each other…I’m not suggesting that we just let people in. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to allow law enforcement to ask a person’s status in situations that do not require it, or in situations where no crime has been committed. That’s the common ground here that gives free reign to people who would take advantage of those with no one to speak for them.
May 27, 2010 at 6:44 am
You’ve change some of my opinions on this topic. I’m starting to see illegal immigration as a symptom to a much larger problem and not just the problem itself. For real change to take place at the border, people will have to start wanting to not leave Mexico… and I can’t help but wonder, if these motivated people aren’t allowed into our country would it force them to begin cleaning out their own closet? Who knows what history will be written. What if this law is the shot in the arm Mexico needs to start weeding out corruption and taking care of itself?
May 30, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Paul, It’s been a long time since we have seen or spoke to eachother. I think we were still teenagers the last time we spoke. I hope you remember me.
I have enjoyed reading your debate with Nathan. It has been, to say the least, “intellectually stimulating.” I’d like to ask your permission to enter the debate with some responses/comments that have been brewing in my head. Also if Nathan wouldn’t mind my sharing, as I do lean in favor of Arizona and would not want to make him feel like he is “tag teamed.” May I share some comments?
May 30, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Hey Rich,
Though the name “Bentley” does ring a bell, I would be lying if I said I could place your name with a face. Don’t hold that against me, and please don’t take it personal! I just have a hard time with names sometimes.
That being said, I’m glad you’ve been getting something from the topic, and of course you are always welcome to contribute rational ideals to any debate you find on my site. For the most part, I don’t filter comments, but do try to maintain a certain level of restraint in debating. After all, nobody ever changed there mind become of something someone yelled at them one time.
I can’t speak for Nate, but as you can gather if you’ve been reading his posts, he’s a pretty level headed guy and I would honestly doubt if he would feel “tag teamed”.
The only caveat to the situation is (at least for me) I feel I’ve said all I can say on the topic for now. I’m still interesting in your thoughts, and hope you share them, but if the debate extends, I might end up repeating talking points… so bear with me on that…
May 31, 2010 at 4:17 pm
well about debate: I wouldn’t have even followed your discussion if I thought it was empty arguing, but that’s beside the point. I like to rant and rave at times but not at any individual or in a civilized discussion.
I really believe that asking about a person’s status does not violate any human rights. Police often times set up license checkpoints at which drivers are required to present their valid driver’s license and proof of insurance and registration. The number on your driver’s license is a type of registration by which the government may keep track of you. That, augmented with social security numbers, bank account numbers, etc. make up what one could call a sort of “National Population Registry” (ref. Art. 85 and 86 or Mexico). So in response to Nathan wanting to avoid a “police state,” we already have one and it started with FDR and Social Security.
Having been a law enforcement officer, I know how probable cause and reasonable suspicion works. It is not as restricting as one may think. A Police officer in a “high-crime” area may have mor ability to stop and search people than he may have in “low-crime” areas. In high-crime areas, an officer may observe a certain person dressed a certain way walking a certain way, at a certain time etc. and stop him and identify him even though no crime is suspected. It is the common knowledge that this is an high-crime area that gives him this right. Apply that idea to Arizona where you have an “high-crime” (meaning high number of illegal immigrants) area. This could be reason to give law enforcement the ability to stop and ask people of their status as citizens.
I wouldn’t be able to go so far as to say that this law is or leads to racial profiling. Yes, people of Hispanic origin are targeted as possible illegal immigrants, that is only because they aren’t looking for German illegal immigrants in Arizona. Mexicans are the ones crossing the border illegally. Now if there was in fact illegal immigrants from Germany and Mexico in Arizona and we only deported Mexicans and left the illegal Germans alone, then you would indeed have racial profiling. However, such is not the case.
Ok though I have much more to say, I’ve said enough. I hope that my statements were not ambiguous, sometimes I have trouble translating what is in my mind to paper.
June 1, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Rich, you brought up two really good points.
First, I agree with you 110% about the carrying of papers for identification. I am not exempt from this behavior. I’ve been asked numerous times to present my identifying paperwork to a law enforcement official. I don’t feel offended or oppressed. I understand that this is simple the way our society is structured, and I want to be a part of that society.
Two, I also think your dead on about the racial profiling. If 99 out of every 100 illegal immigrants are Mexican, its no longer profiling– its statistics. The same can be said for any issue we have demographics for. Statistically speaking, most terrorist have been connected is Islam, most rapists are white men, and most crime occurs in underdeveloped communities. When we have data organizations whose job it is to crunch numbers based on reported incidents I’m left to wonder, is it really acceptable to be offended at facts? Of course not. I would suspect the “racial” issue is a hot button key word used to attempt to deter people from pursuing a specific political avenue.
And that brings me to another, speculative point. Statistically speaking, most Hispanic voting populations vote Democrat. If the statistics showed these people voting Republican, do you think there would still be the political unrest over the issue? Again, I can only speculate, but I have a hunch that a border wall, patrolled by armed guards, would have been built already if that were the case.