I am not sure if these specific students were commuting daily from Mexico to San Diego County schools, or if they lived within the county. I am told that both situations exist among the various students in the SD school system.
I assume, as far as the school is concerned, judging from the quotes above: “They’re here. We’re not ICE, and our schools are not tasked with enforcing Immigration Laws. Education is our priority.”
Wonderful. We both agree that we shouldn’t have to pay for other kids education. My two girls went to private school paid for by me while still paying property taxes to support the public school. I’m against most entitlement programs though.
The real problem is that not enough guest visas are granted to satisfy our labor needs. But if any of you really think they are only taking jobs that americans don’t want then think again. That simply is not true. There needs to be serious reform in the system to allow more people to enter legally and to deal harshly with those that enter illegally. But I have little hope of anything changing. Although it’s quite possible with the drug wars going on at the border towns may possibly hurt the honest hard working ones from entering legally.
None of that has anything to do with the fact that our borders are too pourous and that a lot of companies do indeed pay their workers under the table. I’ve lived in places where the mojority of occupants in the apartment complex were illegals and I know first hand how they live. While not the cleanest or most sober of people, the landlord usually loved them because even though there would be 6 or 8 people in a 1 bedroom apartment, they would pay 6 months of rent in advance. I have nothing against mexicans. My best friends have usually been mexican americans. And most of them weren’t very fond of the illegals.
The best answer is to have more guest visas, harsh penalties on those hiring illegals and less pourous borders. I have to prove my citizenship for every job I take. Why the hell shouldn’t everyone else? Am I the only one that believes in fairness?
If you insist on turning this thread into a combination of a GD on illegal immigrants and a mini-Pit rant, I cannot stop you. However, if you feel you should not pay for the education of other people’s kids, let me point out that my wife and I lost over $100 in groceries due to Hurricane Floyd, and got no government help for it (our church gave us and others who were in the same boat $50 Kroger gift cards, from the generosity of an anonymous donor). Our situation is far from unique here in North Carolina.
Now, $500 million was the figure quoted for helping people after Katrina, and the Feds. put $225 billion into Katrina recovery. Let’s be conservative and say that only 20% of that money was spent on New Orleans, which I see has a present population of 355,000. Since you do not feel it your responsibility to provide for others, and considering that you believe in fairness, I suggest you repay the money spent on you, which by my calculations proportions out to $127,042 as your fair share. When may we expect your check?
====
Now, with that out of the way, can we turn ourselves to a GQ-style response to the questions in the OP?
Yeah, a permanent class of serfs is a real good solution. Go check out Saudi Arabia and their use of Pakistani/non Arab Muslims as laborers and see a shining beacon of labor rights and fair treatment of humans.
He certainly is. The relevant constitutional provisions have already been quoted in this thread; they say nothing about the government “having to know about” someone.
The government wants to know about its citizens, of course; that’s part of the reason why things like the registration of births were intituted. But the government wants to know about them because they’re citizens; they’re not citizens because the government knows about them.
Most schools don’t ask for SSN, from what we here. They really don’t care if the kid is legal or not.
Begs the question - do truancy laws only apply to legal residents? I bet they apply to everyone. Being illegal does not exempt a parent from the obligation to send a child to school…
Apparently, fake SSN documents are not difficult to get. So if you want to charge people for hiring or schooling illegals, or hiring illegals, or whatever - you have to establish what constitutes proof that you are legal? Is that standard fixed and makes it easy to detect forgeries?
In Canada, all employers use the SIN (Social Insurance Number - a rose by any other name). Admittedly, we have one-tenth the people to deal with, but the SIN and other information is sent by the employer to the CRA (Canadian Revenue Agency - like the IRS). It is an offense to hire someone without a SIN. I knew one employer who got hit with several $100 fines for hiring teenagers who worked for a few weeks, promised to get their SIN, and quit before they got it or didn’t tell him by April tax time.
The CRA became very good over a decade ago at determining incorrect or false SIN’s and especially, chasing down people who had registered for multiple SIN’s so they could work on one and collect Unemployment Insurance with the other.
That’s what the IRS needs to do - computers that say “something’s wrong, the late Bertha Johnson of Minnesota is working in California at the age of 104.” Until there is a foolproof way for an employer to verify an employee’s status, you will have illegal immigrants and eployers happy to hire them.
I wonder… for a child born of US tourists while in the United States, is the child automatically a US citizen, or does he merely have the right to claim US citizenship in the future, with the assumption that the tourists and newborn return to their home country and never participate in American culture again? It seems, then, that this exposes the child to potential income tax evasion problems in the future. As we’re discussing in another thread, US citizens are required to file US income taxes, regardless of where there live (this doesn’t necessarily indicate that they actually owe taxes, though).
Supposing our previous newborn, now a successful adult making 200,000 euros per year is transferred to the United States for a three-year assignment, and arrives using his Belgian passport. Certainly he also has brought his birth certificate as a supplementary form of identification in order to ease getting a US social security number, open bank accounts, and so on. It’s only an odd curiosity to him that the birth certificate is from the USA, as he’s considered himself a Belgian his entire life. Of course now that he’d entered the tax system, and it’s know that’s he’s actually an American citizen automatically then rather by choice, he’s now liable for years and years of failing to file his US return, as well as back taxes and penalties for income exceeding the foreign residency exclusions.
It seems like it’s kind of a problem to impose citizenship on someone who might not identify themselves as such.
The problem, surely, is imposing US tax obligations on people who do not reside in the US, do not derive income from the US, and do not benefit to any non-token extent from the services provided by the US government? It’s that, not citizenship, which looks like an imposition to me.
You don’t even know what our immigration laws are. We need visas just
to visit your country and have to pay over 100usd just to apply with no guarantee it will be granted.
You can enter our country with just proof of citizenship.
You can also get permission to work in our country much easier than for us to work in yours.
You can also get permission to marry a Mexican citizen and live here much easier and in much less time than we can do the same in yours.
Look, the laws against illegal aliens are racism pure and simple. Everything said now about illegal aliens today was also said about every ethnic group that had a wave of immigration to America – Italians, Poles, Jews, Irish (other than the language issue). Someone said exactly the same thing about your ancestors.
The laws were set up because the older immigrants didn’t like the new ones arriving, thinking them uncouth, when they behaved no differently than the ancestors of the people who made the laws.
The simple solution is to stop restricting immigration, while requiring that only citizens can get welfare (medical care is different – immigrants should pay into the system, just like anyone else). Of course, that’s politically impossible because of rampant xenophobia, so it’s never going to happen.
On the other hand, I do know many of Mexico’s immigration laws. You’re right in most of your points (I’ve married a Mexican, I’ve visited here, and am currently working here, although it’s no lucrativo). But you can come to the USA and buy property wherever you want to (and without a visa, buy it remotely). I can’t buy property within 100 km of the border or coast (without titling it to a bank). You can protest anything you want in the USA. If I try to support the PAN in even the remotest sense, I’m banned from the country. Except in Arizona, you don’t have to present papers. Anywhere in Mexico, if asked, I do have to show my immigration status or risk detainment (normal law enforcement, not border patrol). And yes, I’ve been subject to Mexican immigration raids at my place of work in Mexico. In Mexico all my time on an FM3 doesn’t count towards citizenship (need an FM2). In the States, all that matters is that my wife lives with me.
Really, I love Mexico, and I love the Mexican people (and especially my Guanajuatense wife), and I love living in Mexico, but the Mexican laws are much, much more draconian than the laws in the United States in general.
All legal immigrants in the US are required to carry their papers at all times.
Your complaint about participating in Mexican politics is a constitutional law applied to all foreigners. It is not immigration law. And it stems from constant meddling by foreigners in our internal affairs, many times with armed force.
Your FM3 doesn’t count towards citizenship because it means you are not an immigrant but solely a temporary visitor. But in your case it would take only 2 years to acquire Mexican citizenship with an FM2 because your wife is a Mexican citizen. It takes at least 5 years in the USA. And by the way, please enlighten your countrymen on just how easy you acquired your FM3. Does your wife have a green card? Which document was easier to get?
The restrictions on foreigners owning property (again due to armed invasions by a neighbor) is also constitutional and applies to all foreigners, not just immigrants. But outside of the restricted zone you can own property. There are laws in the US that also restrict foreigner’s from owning certain property. And I don’t see why so many on this board continually bring up ownership in the restricred zone. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have property through their fideicomiso which grants them all of the same rights as an outright title. They even acquire a lease to federal property adjoing theirs such as at the beach.
Have any of your wife’s family been denied a visa to visit the USA? They would have had to pay around 100usd and be subjected to a humiliating interview where the odds were great they were denied.
If anyone on this board wishes to come to Mèxico and work for me then just let me know. I can get you working papers within one month similar to what Balthisar has. It is a simple procedure if you have the proper paperwork required. And you will be treated respectfully by the immigration authorities here.
Nope. You’re completely wrong. The 14th amendment states that a child born here has the right to be a U.S. citizen. That was established in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Children of Chinese immigrates were considered U.S. citizens even though the law prohibited their parents from gaining citizenship.
As for being ILLEGAL, there’s a very easy fix: We can simply change our laws, and they’d all be legal. They’d be able to participate fully in society, get drivers licenses, pay taxes, and bring full contribution to this society.
My grandmother was from Poland and came to this country at the age of 16. She apparently never learned English and spoke Yiddish most of her life. She didn’t have much of an education either. She came here for the employment opportunity. Sounds pretty much like many of the illegals everyone whines about.
My grandmother, like almost all immigrants, made sure her daughter got an education and even sent her daughter off to college. She married someone whose father immigrated to the United States and sold cigars on the street corners. Those were my parents. I maybe a bit biased about the whole thing, but I believe the U.S. generally benefited from these people coming here looking for a better life.
Yes, I have to compete for jobs with these people, but I look at it this way: I’d rather compete with them here where they are paid $70/hour rather than have them in India where my company can pay them $20/hour.
Actually, it only takes three years to acquire US citizenship if you’re married to a US citizen, though you’d have to have a green card first rather than a work visa (I presume that’s what an FM1 and FM2 are).
Well, no, but they all fit the profile as desirable tourists not likely to overstay their visas. There’s a big difference between professionals who own property and campesinos without even so much as a bank account. That’s not targeted just at Mexicans; anyone from any country whose citizens require a visa to enter the USA will have to go through a qualifying process.
As for the the rest of your post, I do understand all of the reasons, but reasons aren’t important; the fact is the limitations exist. It doesn’t matter if it’s immigration law or constitutional law; the effects are the same. Remember, there are also reasons that it’s hard for a Mexican to get a visa to enter the United States.
What do you do anyway? Guadalajara’s a hell of a lot nicer than the Valle de Mexico, and Manzanillo’s just a few short hours down the road…
