Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

Mexico's Glass House

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Skigirl, Apr 10, 2006.

  1. Skigirl

    Skigirl 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2001
    Posts:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    In response to the latest round of illegal immigrant protesters:

    Mexico's glass house [​IMG]
    How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens [​IMG]
    By J. Michael Waller [​IMG]
    Posted: Thursday, April 6, 2006 [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    PAPERS & STUDIES [​IMG]
    Center for Security Policy [​IMG]
    Publication Date: April 6, 2006
    [​IMG] Introduction
    Every country has the right - and duty - to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.[1]
    Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico's constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens.
    The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States. By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house.
    This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution's protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.
    Summary
    In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:
    • Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
    • Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
    • Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
    • Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
    • Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
    • Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
    • Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
    • Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
    The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants
    Mexico's constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country's political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country." Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."
    The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,
    "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 thereunto; 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." (Emphasis added) ​
    The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."
    The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
    "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 practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

    An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.
    Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95). The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president's parents also be Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
    The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."
    The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."
    The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

    The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
    According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."
    Notional policy options Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another's laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States. Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:
    1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
    2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.
    These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government's current immigration demands on the United States - as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.
    Mexico, like the United States, certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country's national security. Mexico's internal immigration policy is Mexico's business.
    However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny. The time has come to examine Mexico's own glass house.


    J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics, and is Vice President for Information Operations at the Center for Security Policy. He wrote this paper for the Center for Security Policy.


    [1] The official text of the Constitution of Mexico appears on the Website of the Chamber of Deputies, or lower house of Congress, of the United Mexican States: http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/txt/1.txt. An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on the Website of Illinois State University: http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html. Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation.
     
  2. drofdar

    drofdar 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Posts:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fresno, CA
    I have a house in Baja, 35 miles south of San Felipe. The article is correct about ownership close to the beach. I lease my lot, and own the house. Kinda like owning a house on Indian land here. I have to renew my residency visa every year to include $1000 in the bank to guarantee solvency. And my residency VISA expressly prohibits voting, and working. I obey the rules because I want to have a vacation/recreation beach house in their country. I also recognize that Mexico and the USA are different. That is why
    I obey the laws of that country, and expect others to obey our laws while here. We don't need new immigration laws in the US. We just need to enforce the ones we have. How about enforcing employers to get SSN numbers from workers and withholding tax? No SSN, no work. Vote? Last time I heard you must be a citizen. Foreign National ownership of property here is another issue. That is one law I would like to see changed. It just ain't right for Japanese to own the SeaHawks. Maybe Mexico does have that one right!
     
  3. Bubba Ray Boudreaux

    Bubba Ray Boudreaux 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Posts:
    20,716
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Undisclosed Location
    Problem with that is that false identification is very huge within the illegal immigrant community. A lot of them have SSN's, even though they are either belong to someone else and the immigrant buys them, or they are downright forgeries. That's how they get around that little problem. There are also states in this country that hand out ID's and driver's licenses to illegals like candy.
     
  4. chevyin

    chevyin 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pismo Bch CA
    Seeing all the demonstrations today on the news made me sick to my stomach. In every interview they called themselves 'immigrants'. Hello, they aren't 'immigrants', they are 'illegal immigrants'. How easily they forget that little detail. But oh okay, they waved American flags during the demonstrations today rather than the Mexican flags of 2 weeks ago, so that makes it all okay!

    And then to hear Ted Kennedy gave a speech backing up their arguement. :rolleyes: The sad part is our more and more liberalized society will probably let them get away with it, just so long as it doesn't hurt the ozone layer.
     
  5. Caseyrey

    Caseyrey Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Posts:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Yucca Valley,CA
    What gets me the worst is the disrespect for this country they show. I have many friends who are currently overseas serving our country and to see this crap happening is horribly.I have no problem if they are trying to get a better life but please just do it the legal way. Oh and whats great is to hear the stupid kids at school who are all for it but are actually legal and actually pay taxes some people should really listen first then speak. Just a thought
     
  6. afroman006

    afroman006 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,876
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    College Station & Kingsville, Texas
    Calling our society "liberalized" is asinine and incorrect. In case you havent noticed the house and senate have republican majorities. "Conservatives" are just as much to blame for illegal immigration as liberals. Both sides pander to the hispanic population for votes so they can stay in the office and continue to do nothing. I hate to say it but IMO there is a large enough legal hispanic population to make legislators afraid of losing their votes and as a result, appease the wetbacks.

    I think it wouldnt be all bad to build the infamous big ****ing wall, and give the current illegals a limited citizenship where they are not allowed to vote, have to pay stupid amounts of taxes, like 50 or 60%, and allow the popo to profile the **** out of them, you know, cause of the insurance thing. ...
     
  7. chevyin

    chevyin 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pismo Bch CA
    *sigh* A guy can't make a (semi-serious) joke around you without getting called assinine? Did the snake thread tick you off at me or what? ;)

    And yes, Ive 'noticed' who has the majority in our federal house and senate, so? Ive lived in Cali the past 3 years and let me tell you, its a liberal heaven here. Our federal govt's slant is not what I was speaking of. I did not say our liberal government, I said our 'liberalized society' (ie: catering to illegal immigrants just because they want a better life). Maybe you haven't heard about the recent push to pass a bill giving (illegal) immigrants educational grants? The arguement is if they are gonna be here anyway, might as well educate them to contribute to our society. And then there's the ban on drilling in Anwar, talk of monetary compensation for the living relatives of former slaves, coddling those poor captures terrorists (omg we took naked pictures of them next to women, that's way worse than any torture done in Viet Nam, for example... etc etc). Yes, in some ways our society has become more conservative, but are you suggesting it has not become more liberal in others?

    I have no desire to argue with you or anyone, certainly not about politics on a 4x4 internet website, but please keep the 'assinine' comments to yourself. If your opinion disagrees with mine, there are much better ways to express it. Thankyou.

    edit: And for the record, I mostly agree with you. A wall/fence is needed, badly. Not to mention a full-time border patrol that can actually patrol the entire border. If 'border patrols' are not for stopping this sort of thing, wth are they for??? Just for seizing bales of pot and getting a sun tan? lol
     
  8. TSGB

    TSGB 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Posts:
    12,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Centralia, Washington
    You mean Nintendo of America owning the Mariners? :D

    Paul Allen (Microsoft co-owner) owns the Seahawks. Actually bought the team to keep it in Seattle.
     
  9. afroman006

    afroman006 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,876
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    College Station & Kingsville, Texas
    Sorry, I didnt catch the sarcasm:doah: . I figured asinine was too strong of a word but I'm an engineer and am not too good at annunciating so I couldnt come up with anything better. No offense intended.
     
  10. chevyin

    chevyin 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pismo Bch CA
    Thanks for the nice reply. :)

    Im an engineer too, yes we suck at communicating, just ask any mechanic/machinist who has to read one of our prints! lmao

    Cheers.
     

Share This Page