snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Politics » Mexican Immigration Laws

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Mexican Immigration Laws
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 600 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
This is a "must read", all the way through !!!

1. If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native language

2. You have to be a professional or an investor. No unskilled workers
allowed.

3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no
special ballots for elections, all government business will be
conducted
in our language.

4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they
are here.

5 Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no
food
stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.

7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount
equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT
options will be restricted. You are not allowed waterfront property.
That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign
flag, no political organizing, no badmouthing our president or his
policies, if you do you will be sent home.

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down
and sent straight to jail.

Harsh, you say? The above laws belong to the immigration laws of
MEXICO!

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pilchik
Deck the Malls


Icon 211 posted      Profile for pilchik   E-mail pilchik   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Sounds like a pretty shitty place to live. Aren't you glad we don't have stupid laws like that? [Big Grin]

--------------------
"20 years of boredom"

Posts: 242 | From: Niagara Falls, Ontario | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Mexican Constitution

4-5, 9: Article 33: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." (See also Article 35 listing the prerogatives of Mexican citizens.)

5: Article 32: "In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of pratique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

5: Article 55: "The following are the requirements to be a deputy:
I. To be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his rights;"

Article 59 extends makes the requirements to be a Senator the same as a deputy, except for age. Article 82 require the President to be " Mexican citizen by birth, in the full enjoyment of his rights, and the son of Mexican parents by birth". Article 91 states that to be a secretary, you have to be a Mexican citizen by birth, too. Article 95 extends the requirement of Mexican citizenship by birth to ministers of the Supreme Court of Justice. Article 115 requires governors to be Mexican citizens by birth. Article 130 limits ministers of any religion in Mexico to Mexican citizens by birth.

8: Article 27: "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country."

Also found this: Don't Blame Mexico.

--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
About Mexican Immigration

Verifies #7 and possibly #6 (retirees to Mexico must demonstrate a monthly income 400 times the daily minimum wage). It contradicts the first part of #2, since retirees are neither professionals nor investors.

It also contradicts #6, resident aliens can claim state benefits.

Moving to Mexico: FAQ's contradicts #1: "Also, we recommend getting some help (at least the first time) [when renewing an FM3 temporary resident status visa] if you don’t speak Spanish to avoid a lot of frustration."

--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
nicky
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for nicky   E-mail nicky   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Point 7 is misleading and 8 is wrong.
Posts: 60 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
4 - 7 are reasonably standard in a lot of places I think. (Whether in Mexico or not.) The question in those cases is how easy it is to go from "foreigner" to "non-foreigner" (citizen, permanent resident or whatever status you need).

Having said that, I found out a few years ago that all Commonwealth citizens can vote in UK parliamentary elections so the part about only citizens voting may not be as usual as I'd thought.

Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nicky:
Point 7 is misleading

From Mexico immigration:

quote:
Investors
You can receive an immigration permit if you are willing to invest your capital in Mexico. You investment can be directed at industry or services, and must equal a minimum of 40,000 times the minimum daily wage in Mexico City.

quote:
Originally posted by nicky:
and 8 is wrong.

From the Mexican Constitution:

quote:
Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.
The land much be put in a trust which is held by a Mexican citizen.

--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard W:
4 - 7 are reasonably standard in a lot of places I think. (Whether in Mexico or not.)

The US permits foreigners to participate in political demonstration and to make political speeches.

--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
hudders
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for hudders   Author's Homepage   E-mail hudders   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard W:
4 - 7 are reasonably standard in a lot of places I think. (Whether in Mexico or not.)

Good ideas all of them.
Posts: 81 | From: Bourne, UK | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
A couple of quick notes:
On 10: Undocumented immigrants are also "hunted down" and arrested in the US and generally sent "straight to jail" in the U.S. But in Mexico, as in the U.S., not all are caught.

On 9: Hate to tell you, but there are not absolute First Ammendment protection of free speech for non-citizens in the U.S. A number of times in the past Congress has passed laws mandating deportation for dissidents. There is currently no law against protesting for better immigration laws, but that could change.

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TwoGuyswithaHat
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for TwoGuyswithaHat   E-mail TwoGuyswithaHat   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PatYoung:
On 9: Hate to tell you, but there are not absolute First Ammendment protection of free speech for non-citizens in the U.S. A number of times in the past Congress has passed laws mandating deportation for dissidents. There is currently no law against protesting for better immigration laws, but that could change.

There is no guarantee of any constitutional protection for a non-US citizen in the US. It came out during an investigation into the going ons of Maher Arar in Canada, that the Bush Administration considers anyone, not a US citizen to be devoid of rights in the US.

--------------------
In politics, absurdity is not a handicap - Napoleon Bonaparte

Posts: 1801 | From: The Forest City, Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TwoGuyswithaHat:
quote:
Originally posted by PatYoung:
On 9: Hate to tell you, but there are not absolute First Ammendment protection of free speech for non-citizens in the U.S. A number of times in the past Congress has passed laws mandating deportation for dissidents. There is currently no law against protesting for better immigration laws, but that could change.

There is no guarantee of any constitutional protection for a non-US citizen in the US. It came out during an investigation into the going ons of Maher Arar in Canada, that the Bush Administration considers anyone, not a US citizen to be devoid of rights in the US.
The Bush Amdministration is not the arbitor of such things.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TwoGuyswithaHat
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for TwoGuyswithaHat   E-mail TwoGuyswithaHat   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by TwoGuyswithaHat:
quote:
Originally posted by PatYoung:
On 9: Hate to tell you, but there are not absolute First Ammendment protection of free speech for non-citizens in the U.S. A number of times in the past Congress has passed laws mandating deportation for dissidents. There is currently no law against protesting for better immigration laws, but that could change.

There is no guarantee of any constitutional protection for a non-US citizen in the US. It came out during an investigation into the going ons of Maher Arar in Canada, that the Bush Administration considers anyone, not a US citizen to be devoid of rights in the US.
The Bush Amdministration is not the arbitor of such things.
Oh that I understand, but with the way they have been playing fast and loose with constitutional interpretation this assertion didn't surprise me. It horrified me that anyone would think this way, but it didn't surprise me. I will see if I can dig up a cite, as I heard the story originally on CBC Radio.

--------------------
In politics, absurdity is not a handicap - Napoleon Bonaparte

Posts: 1801 | From: The Forest City, Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Four Kitties
Layaway in a Manger


Icon 503 posted      Profile for Four Kitties   E-mail Four Kitties   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TwoGuyswithaHat:
quote:
Originally posted by PatYoung:
On 9: Hate to tell you, but there are not absolute First Ammendment protection of free speech for non-citizens in the U.S. A number of times in the past Congress has passed laws mandating deportation for dissidents. There is currently no law against protesting for better immigration laws, but that could change.

There is no guarantee of any constitutional protection for a non-US citizen in the US. It came out during an investigation into the going ons of Maher Arar in Canada, that the Bush Administration considers anyone, not a US citizen to be devoid of rights in the US.
"Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country" (Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148).

In Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202), the Supreme Court said the children of undocumented immigrants have the right to a public education.

In 1876 (Henderson v. New York) the Supreme Court declared that the regulation of immigration "was the exclusive right of Congress."

Four Kitties

--------------------
If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales?

Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
shifty rob
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for shifty rob     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't understand the point of this essay. Is the author implying that the U.S. should not give rights to Mexican immigrants because Mexico doesn't give the same rights to foreign nationals in their country? If so, how can you logically hold the poor bastards that are FLEEING a particular country responsible for that country's policies?

If that isn't the unstated point of the essay, then what is? And why would we care, unless our unrealized retirement plan was to move to Mexico, buy a beachfront motel, and run for 'el Presidente'?

--------------------
"They got a name for the winners in the world; I want a name when I lose" -Steely Dan

Posts: 480 | From: Tampa Bay, FL | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TwoGuyswithaHat
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for TwoGuyswithaHat   E-mail TwoGuyswithaHat   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I have found the story to which I was referring to. Of course, if I were to visit the US I full expect to be treated in accordance with the law and various treaties between Canada and the US. However, it appears that not all within the government neccessarily follow this same line of thinking, at least in regards to air travel.

Flyers passing through U.S. have few rights, Arar judge told

quote:
A senior lawyer for the U.S. government has told a judge hearing a lawsuit over Maher Arar's deportation to Syria that foreign citizens passing through American airports have almost no rights.
quote:
At most, Mary Mason told a hearing in Brooklyn, N.Y., passengers would have the right not to be subjected to "gross physical abuse."
quote:
Mason said the U.S. government is interpreting its powers in such a way that passengers never intending to enter the U.S. connecting to international flights at U.S. airports must prove they are no threat and could be allowed to enter the country.
The burden of proof has shifted. . .

quote:
"You are fair game for however executive branch wants to treat you."
ETF: Coding mistake on my part

--------------------
In politics, absurdity is not a handicap - Napoleon Bonaparte

Posts: 1801 | From: The Forest City, Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Again, Two Guys, that was an attorney making his case before the court. The attorney's client is the Bush administration. Attorneys (thank the Lord above) are not arbitors of law.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 600 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Is the author implying that the U.S. should not give rights to Mexican immigrants because Mexico doesn't give the same rights to foreign nationals in their country?
Of course!

quote:
If so, how can you logically hold the poor bastards that are FLEEING a particular country responsible for that country's policies?
Because we don't want them here! They're stinky Mexicans, so they should be made to answer for their government's policies. If they were coming from Finland, say, then of course they'd be poor refugees who can't be held responsible for what their government does.

- snopes

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Nion
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nion         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So am I the only one who felt that these people should have been protesting their OWN government and policies, rather than OUR policies?

They wouldn't have to break into our country if there wasn't so much wrong with their own country.

--------------------
It can't rain all the time.

Posts: 1102 | From: Iowa | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Menolly
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Menolly   E-mail Menolly   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Excellent point, RelicMan. And snopes, near-YOMANK on the last response! But let me add that I'm thinking the OP isn't wanting to hold Mexicans responsible for their own government's policies; it's making the point that we have a set of policies for staying in our own country and the US wants those policies to be followed. With the follow-up point that our policies are not the strictest ones on the planet.

IMHO, I like the part where you have to prove to Mexico that you can support yourself before you can stay. That makes a lot of sense. Anyone else see that as a positive?

--------------------
Let's just pretend we're normal for a minute ~ New favorite T-shirt quote

Posts: 1193 | From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RelicMan:
So am I the only one who felt that these people should have been protesting their OWN government and policies, rather than OUR policies?

They wouldn't have to break into our country if there wasn't so much wrong with their own country.

That's dangerous. Somebody might get hurt.

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Four Kitties:
quote:
Originally posted by TwoGuyswithaHat:
quote:
Originally posted by PatYoung:
On 9: Hate to tell you, but there are not absolute First Ammendment protection of free speech for non-citizens in the U.S. A number of times in the past Congress has passed laws mandating deportation for dissidents. There is currently no law against protesting for better immigration laws, but that could change.


"Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country" (Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148).


Four Kitties

Sorry , but while there cannot be a criminal prosecurion of an immigrant for exercising a protected First Ammendment right, that same immigrant can be deported or excluded from the U.S. for speech or association. Harisiades v Shaugnessy 342 U.S. 580 (1952) is the leading case on this. "the alien...has never been conceded legal parity with the citizen." In Harisiades several aliens who had been members of the Communist Party at a time when that party was a legal political party running candidates on many state ballots were deported by a law passed after they had quit the party. While they could not be prosecuted under this ex post facto law, they were eligible for deportation.

Although I said that immigrants do not have full First ammendment protection, they do enjoy other protections under the Constitution as you noted re Plyler v. Doe (a case I have relied on in several situations), although strangely, while they have procedural due process protections they do not enjoy substantive due process protection.

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Gaia
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gaia   E-mail Gaia   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
COME ON!!!!! That is the most moronic thing I've heard (the op). It is mostly taken out of context from a constitution that was written in 1917 and hasn't been modified ever since!

For the record, we have government officials that are foreign born in actuality. Most of the turist establishments are foreign owned including most business that belonged to the country (like banks, gas, etc) which the constitution states that they belong to the country and should never be privatized much less owned by a foreign company.

I am the first to admit that people going to another country illegally is wrong and should be punishable by law. But as a Mexican with a legal travel visa, passport, a high income, a house in what is considered Bel Air of Mexico and a job, I don't thik I deserve to be yelled at, interrogated and treated like a criminal every time I go LEGALLY to the US on vacations.

We have illegal immigrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and Cuba mostly ( o and some eastern european women who come to work at strip clubs) and they never get treated badly or even deported.

And in my town there is an american who came here illegaly without a job, income, home or anything and he makes his living as a "Franelero" which is basically when you want to park in the street you have to pay him to take care of your car if you don't pay him you will find your car scratched or damaged. He dosen't speak any spanish except waht is required for the "job" and he is still here.

The immigration problem is a complex one. It is not so black and white. But I feel that there is some racism forming and that it is somewhat being accepted. And the OP is just adding a log , an ignorant log, to the fire.

--------------------
Smile....It confuses people!

Posts: 29 | From: Toronto, ON | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
TwoGuyswithaHat
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for TwoGuyswithaHat   E-mail TwoGuyswithaHat   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
Again, Two Guys, that was an attorney making his case before the court. The attorney's client is the Bush administration. Attorneys (thank the Lord above) are not arbitors of law.

I understand. However, what I have trouble grasping is if they are making that argument before a court, than that would be the belief of the executive. Thus, if it were the belief of the current executive, could they not act as they wish in regards to people passing through their airports? In effect making people disappear, as they article stated the belief of the administration is

quote:
foreign citizens passing through American airports have almost no rights.
I understand that is not the law of the land so to speak, but rather the interpretation of the current administration. Therefore, the law at least until the current administration is finished?

I apologize, I am not trying to be thick and obtuse here. For all I know, I could be acting out of fear on my part as I have passed through American airports on several occasions. But could this not be a matter of as Andrew Jackson once said (and I paraphrase) "the courts have made their decision, now let them enforce it"?

--------------------
In politics, absurdity is not a handicap - Napoleon Bonaparte

Posts: 1801 | From: The Forest City, Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Menolly
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Menolly   E-mail Menolly   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Gaia, even though the OP was mostly tongue-in-cheek, I took your reaction as a challenge. So I looked through this website:
http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm

I checked a few of the points from the OP. According to this information site, the points I checked weren't too far off from the OP. English isn't common, have to prove financial stability, have to get health insurance. Do you have a website that states the OP is wrong?

--------------------
Let's just pretend we're normal for a minute ~ New favorite T-shirt quote

Posts: 1193 | From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TwoGuyswithaHat:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
Again, Two Guys, that was an attorney making his case before the court. The attorney's client is the Bush administration. Attorneys (thank the Lord above) are not arbitors of law.

I understand. However, what I have trouble grasping is if they are making that argument before a court, than that would be the belief of the executive. Thus, if it were the belief of the current executive, could they not act as they wish in regards to people passing through their airports? In effect making people disappear, as they article stated the belief of the administration is

quote:
foreign citizens passing through American airports have almost no rights.
I understand that is not the law of the land so to speak, but rather the interpretation of the current administration. Therefore, the law at least until the current administration is finished?

I apologize, I am not trying to be thick and obtuse here. For all I know, I could be acting out of fear on my part as I have passed through American airports on several occasions. But could this not be a matter of as Andrew Jackson once said (and I paraphrase) "the courts have made their decision, now let them enforce it"?

No, you don't have it right.

The courts interpret laws, not the executive.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
hudders
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for hudders   Author's Homepage   E-mail hudders   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shifty rob:
I don't understand the point of this essay. Is the author implying that the U.S. should not give rights to Mexican immigrants because Mexico doesn't give the same rights to foreign nationals in their country? If so, how can you logically hold the poor bastards that are FLEEING a particular country responsible for that country's policies?

If that isn't the unstated point of the essay, then what is? And why would we care, unless our unrealized retirement plan was to move to Mexico, buy a beachfront motel, and run for 'el Presidente'?

It's just another example of an American demonising Mexico as an oppressive country which cares about nothing and nobody but itself. Unlike America of course.
Posts: 81 | From: Bourne, UK | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Methuselah
Happy Holly Days


Icon 15 posted      Profile for Methuselah     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
No, you don't have it right.

The courts interpret laws, not the executive.

Not according to Our Fearless Leader:
"The Legislature's job is to write law. It's the Executive Branch's job to interpret law." - George W. Bush, Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000
[Razz]

--------------------
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Methuselah:
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
No, you don't have it right.

The courts interpret laws, not the executive.

Not according to Our Fearless Leader:
"The Legislature's job is to write law. It's the Executive Branch's job to interpret law." - George W. Bush, Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000
[Razz]

Hopefully, he's learned something since he was governor.

*sigh*

Well, it was a nice thought for a moment.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
jimmy101
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jimmy101   E-mail jimmy101   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
One thing to remember about the Mexican Constitution is that Mexico actually has experienced a large influx of foreigners who managed to gain control of local governments and ultimately seceded (stole) a pretty large chunk of land from Mexico. Of course, the immigrants were American and the hunk of land became Texas.

I don't think it is at all surprising that the Mexican Constitution would be sensitive to the possibility of that happening again.

Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gaia:
It is mostly taken out of context from a constitution that was written in 1917 and hasn't been modified ever since!

The webpage I cited for the Mexican Constitution indicated that it was modified last in 1966.

--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2