Should U.S. Immigration Law Emulate Mexico's?

[TBoneTX 45,303]

More insightful thoughts -- keep them coming, si man!

I heard or read that Mexico's illegal immigrants chiefly come from Guatemala & Honduras -- ironically, from over Mexico's southern border. Perhaps someone else can verify this or elaborate upon it.

When I worked at a university, we hired a professor from Germany who was somewhere along in our immigration process (I remain clueless). He mentioned twice that Japan's immigration requirements are tougher by far than those of the U.S. Back then, I had no knowledge of such matters and no real interest in probing further. Given the current discussion, it would provide insight if I had that information to offer now, si man.

In answer to Lia's question, my own views about immigration have changed considerably over the last few years. I composed a lengthy & detailed response for this thread; however, after having slept on it, I'd best save it for the book, si man. The thoughts deal with the three classes of illegal immigrants; families who visited freely across the Rio Grande for generations, until recently; the border fence; civil rights, especially the Fourth Amendment; Truths that We Hold To Be Self-Evident but the Supreme Court Doesn't; and Laws that Congress Shall Pass None Of, but Does, Over & Over & OVER.

Here is one thing (one of several desires that arose from a "Walter Mitty" daydream of finding myself as the U.S. President): I would order all Federal, state, and local law-enforcement personnel to avoid asking certain questions, such as those that are mentioned in an outstanding article in the July 2007 issue of the Big Bend Gazette, entitled "Summer Fun: Exercising My Civil Rights":

http://www.bigbendgazette.com/blog/_archiv...20/3132966.html

If the link doesn't directly work, go to www.bigbendgazette.com and search "Summer Fun" -- an article about what happens in the "De-Constitutionalized Zone" of the U.S. How much worse could things be were someone to venture toward the wrong place while being out-of-status because "we decided that we couldn't afford the $1,010 to apply for AOS right away, no man," si man? (And people wonder why I hasten to hammer fuzzbrains on VJ for their cavalier attitudes regarding timely AOS-filing, huh man?)

Oh -- and, were I the President, I would fly during my first week in office to a certain South American country, visit a certain consulate, read riot acts to certain personnel while holding them a foot off the ground against a wall by their crumpled shirt-front, and promptly relieve them of duty and haul them back to the U.S. in chains to undergo unbailable prison and televised public trials for charges of & relating to Official Oppression and Abuse.

But that's just me, si man.

Edited December 16, 2009 by TBoneTX

[TBoneTX 45,303]

bump, si man.

[thongd4me 69]

The only one comment that I will make (so far) is that I think US immigration policy is more subject than Mexico's to the

influence of lobbying and interest groups with some kind of agenda. It seems that on the Mexico side it is handled more

in the sense of what the bureaucracy thinks is best for the country (if that's a selfish interest, so be it and make no apologies).

I think the decisions made by the bureaucracy will come from the political authority in power rather than a consensus of

the legislative bodies.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quiero comprender.

Si, man.

[TBoneTX 45,303]

bump, si man.

[leahandlucas 15]

Figure...i went twice in november/december...to get married was a pain in the but with "registro civil"....and with the INM as well...

Im going down there again in 40 odd days for the whole summer and we talked about the whole FM2/FM3 thing....and i myself am married to a Mexican....

Interstingly though as someone stated,...i too have qualifications that im graduating on in may of next year with 2 bachelors degrees...one in history, and the other in secondary education with English as a second language<---right there i already have a TON of offers...

Im in the same position as everyone else married to a Mexican...

Wanted to get her a B1 visa...but with all the excitement about the wedding, i did more damage than good because NOW she won't be able to get a B1/B2 visa because she's married to a USC (being me)...and it specifically asks that question on the application as well as the status of the person in the U.S.

She has a great job as a secretary in a language centre, earns good. I should be working there as well,...but her being married to me,...it'd be hard to get a tourist visa without the whole "intention to return" issue..

I just want to take her across the border for the day so we can buy a car together cheaper, thats it...buy it,...drive it back the same day...i dunno...maybe take her to taco bell as well...

Also...Txbone....you might want to investigate the border crossing at "piedras negras" in Coahuila (where my wife is from, but she lives in Torreon) but thats a small town border with the "eagle pass" bridge

theres another town really close as well...forgot its name...

[TBoneTX 45,303]

Txbone....you might want to investigate the border crossing at "piedras negras" in Coahuila (where my wife is from, but she lives in Torreon) but thats a small town border with the "eagle pass" bridge

Been across several times. NOT my favorite, for reasons that can't be printed here, but by God will be, in living color, when I produce my book. Edited March 30, 2010 by TBoneTX

[TBoneTX 45,303]

bump

[leahandlucas 15]

can you write me personally then please on a private pm about your experience with piedras negras and see if i've had the same experiences as you have had....thanks

[evli1966 88]

First Please forgive my ignorance in most immigration matters and any statement which may seem xenophobic(not sure if this is the correct word).

There are many of the laws that Mexico has that seem to me much better than the laws we have now. They are tougher in some areas and seem to be enforced throughout the system at all levels.

What I have seen most people who come to any country to immigrate legally are coming to live in that country as citizens and prosper with out looking back. They do not forget where they come from but they do remember why they are were they are now for a reason.

American immigration laws pertaining to illegal immigrants are to lenient and sporadically enforced through out the system.

Mexican law is tough on illegal immigrants and are enforced at all levels.

American law states if you are found to be here illegally or used fraud to make your way through the system you could be banned from the US. If you are already in the US how often is this enforced? As a citizen I rarely hear of it but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Mexico classes the citizens based on immigrant status, citizen status and natural born citizen and it is legal to discriminate to some degree based on this law . I like this a lot.

American laws state no matter what status you are the same rights are yours even if you are here illegally. It may be better to say "It appears in the USA all rights are given to everyone with no regards to your citizenship or immigration status".

I believe all citizens here legally that are becoming a citizen legally deserve the same rights as any other US citizen. Those that are only here out of necessity of their needs and have no intention of becoming a US citizen should not have the same rights as us; whether here legally or illegally.

USA was founded by immigrants coming here for a new hope and was excited to invite one and all. This invitation was to become a US Citizen and that invitation should never be removed but with the way our world is today it does need to be amended.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Non-citizens in the US don't have the same rights and privileges as a citizen. The rights that non-citizens and citizens do share are what would broadly be described as human rights. Protection against unreasonable search and seizure, due process, etc.

Non-citizens cannot vote in any election, nor hold elected office. They need special authorization from the government to work, and there are numerous "positions of trust" jobs they may not hold. If they are legal permanent residents then they have much more limited options for family immigration sponsorship, and if they are not LPR's then they have no options at all. The list goes on.

The United States is not Mexico, and I don't think we should be looking to Mexico for guidance on how to deal with immigration. However, I do think it's fair to point out the differences and similarities between the laws of Mexico and US, and how those laws are enforced, especially when exposing of hypocrisy of illegal immigration activists and officials in the Mexican government.

Amnesty International released a devastating report about the horrific treatment of illegal immigrants in Mexico. The Christian Science Monitor wrote an article about it here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100428/wl_csm/297614

Using statistics from Mexico's own National Human Rights Commission, the report says that 10,000 illegal immigrants were abducted in a six month period in 2009. Nearly half of those said that Mexican government officials were involved in their abductions. In a country that is so blatantly corrupt, it surprises me that the news media would pay any attention at all to any comments their government makes about US immigration laws. Yet, they do...

There are some things about Mexico's immigration law that I like, and many things I don't like and don't think would be good for the US. For example, I don't think the US should get involved in trying to engineer the racial and cultural mixture of it's residents, or controlling their distribution across the country. We come close enough to doing this by setting a cap on the percentage of immigrants that can come from any one country.

Theoretical US immigration official: I'm sorry, but you can't move to that city. There are already too many people from your country living there.

Theoretical immigrant: But my entire family lives there!

I do think it's perfectly reasonable for any nation, including the US, to take measures to ensure that people enter the country legally, and that the people who are in the country have a legal basis to be there. I visited Southern Italy for a few weeks in 1979. In one day I was asked by the Carabinieri (the national police) for my passport on three separate occasions; twice on public transportation, and once while walking down a street in Naples. It was obvious that I did not look like an Italian, which I'm certain is the reason they approached me and not the dozens of Italians who were around me. I never felt like this was unreasonable or unwarranted, nor that I was being "profiled" in any objectionable way. At the time, it seemed like a common sense approach to enforcing their immigration laws, and I was happy to oblige. The officers were courteous, and each encounter took no more than 30 seconds. Every time the debate arises about officers asking for identification, I think of that day in Naples and wonder what the fuss is about.

[belinda63 3,038]

To add a thought. The US limits the number of visas available by countries, notably in the DV lottery. Try looking up the Eugenics program in the US circa 1920's and you will see where this came from. It was an attempt to limit the undesirables from certain regions from diluting the Anglo Saxon blood. If I remember correctly prior to this the US had an open door policy on immigration, pretty much if you can pay the transportation and make a living here you are welcome.

But now we have limited resources, limited economy, etc to support a major influx of immigrants thus the need for limits on all visas. I didn't really see a lot in the Mexico immigration program that is significantly different from ours it all looks good on paper but it is the reality, as most of us know, that is the real telling.

Maybe a better answer would be supporting the world so everyone has opportunities in their own country rather than disparity that exists now. When a person can make in one month in the US what they would make in one year in their country, or when they don't have access to medical care, food, or clean water, really what can you expect them to do?

[evli1966 88]

Jim

Thank you for clarifying for me as i said I am not that informed and most of my statements are from my my personal believes which could be based on flawed information.

Legal non-residents and legal immigrants should be here and have worked hard to be here typically; I have no problem with applying what would be our social responsibilities to helping them. Any thing else can be debated by more intelligent people than myself.

Are not Illegal immigrants eligible for medical, food assistance, allowed to work as day labor without question, education for their children all in the name of humanitarian assistance. Heck wasn't the citizens of Mexico that lived close to borders at one time sending their children to our school systems? They would cross the borders each morning and evening. (Again this could be media hype that I heard)

Humanitarian aide can be freely given to them in their own countries by volunteers and charitable donations.

This is were I believe our laws should possibly mimic some of the restrictions that I read in the links. I am sorry if Mexico has corrupt officials but so do we even if they may not encourage kidnappings, human slave trade etc. Those same Mexican officials opened their prison system to let out criminal knowing they would flee to USA. So I am not sold 100% on their laws and enforcement but the ideas are on the correct track.

We as a people need to create strong laws that will allow immigrants to continue to come here legally and enrich our country both economically and diversity.

BUT

This country is built on strong immigration in the past but it can not sustain the influx of illegals and their families.

My apologies If I got off track I do really enjoy reading the diverse opinions which all seem to agree on a similar out come. And it is being done with out flames.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Are not Illegal immigrants eligible for medical, food assistance, allowed to work as day labor without question, education for their children all in the name of humanitarian assistance. Heck wasn't the citizens of Mexico that lived close to borders at one time sending their children to our school systems? They would cross the borders each morning and evening. (Again this could be media hype that I heard)

To be eligible for Medicare you generally must be either a US citizen or an LPR who has resided in the US for at least 5 years continuously. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP - previously called food stamps) has similar eligibility requirements. Both programs make exceptions for non-immigrants legally admitted on humanitarian grounds. Also, some requirements, such as the 5 year residence requirement, are not enforced for children.

Schools are subject to state and local laws. They are subject to federal laws only if they accept federal funds (which the overwhelming majority do). There is no federal requirement that students in public schools be legally present in the US. Many state and local laws only require that the student is a resident of the district where they attend school. Therefore, most illegal immigrant children do attend public schools.

Many school districts near the border with Mexico have the same residency requirements as other school districts, but proof of residency often involves no more than a utility bill with an address in the district where the child claims to live. Many of those children you read about have family or friends living across the border who will happily provide them with the evidence they need to enroll.

Hospitals are generally required to provide emergency medical treatment to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay or their legal status. They are usually partially reimbursed by taxpayers for non-paying patients. In California, most private hospitals will refuse to accept a patient in the emergency room if they don't have insurance unless their condition is imminently life threatening because the reimbursement doesn't come close to covering their expenses. They'll send them to the county hospital, which is usually overwhelmed with indigent and illegal immigrants.

Edited April 30, 2010 by JimVaPhuong

[franklie 0]

Schools are subject to state and local laws. They are subject to federal laws only if they accept federal funds (which the overwhelming majority do). There is no federal requirement that students in public schools be legally present in the US. Many state and local laws only require that the student is a resident of the district where they attend school. Therefore, most illegal immigrant children do attend public schools.

Many school districts near the border with Mexico have the same residency requirements as other school districts, but proof of residency often involves no more than a utility bill with an address in the district where the child claims to live. Many of those children you read about have family or friends living across the border who will happily provide them with the evidence they need to enroll.

The schools to which my children go have non-resident students in the classes. It is interesting to see the cars with "placas" de Baja California drive up and 3 or 4 children in their school uniform leave the car with their bookbags. It is entirely possible that the parent works in the US while living in Mexico but even with SENTRI I am sure in the morning the children have to wake up around 5am.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

The schools to which my children go have non-resident students in the classes. It is interesting to see the cars with "placas" de Baja California drive up and 3 or 4 children in their school uniform leave the car with their bookbags. It is entirely possible that the parent works in the US while living in Mexico but even with SENTRI I am sure in the morning the children have to wake up around 5am.

I'm a lot further north, in the San Francisco bay area, so we don't see B.C. tags on cars very often. I saw them a lot more often when I lived in SoCal.

There are some illegal kids attending the public schools in the district where I live, but most of them actually live in the district so they don't have problems with the proof of residence. The district only requires a utility bill with an address in the district.

The biggest problem is the kids who live outside the district. Every morning, there is a parade of kids going from the BART train station to the high school. While that particular station is within the district for the high school, the nearest stations in either direction are not, so there's no way a kid who lives in the district is taking the train to school. Most of these kids are coming from Oakland. Their parents are sending them here because they believe the schools are safer than the ones in Oakland. The problem is that some of these kids are the REASON that the schools are not safe in Oakland, so now we have some Oakland gangs with a presence in our high school. The school district talks big about enforcement, but they don't do anything about it because they get paid by the state for each student that attends classes. With enrollments dropping, they'll happily turn a blind eye to kids coming from outside the district.

Anyway, that's off topic. I don't see California doing anything to stop illegal immigrant kids from attending public schools anytime soon.