Border Fence approved

Approved, but maybe not paid for.

WAPO: In Border Fence’s Path, Congressional Roadblocks

In a further development on this issue, Mexico has threatenedto take its case against the fence to the United Nations.

What international law or treaty obligations might the US be violating by building such a fence?

Is there a misunderstanding here perhaps? Do Mexicans crossing the border actually believe they are immigrating to the US?

Being the big, bad, US? This is the UN, after all.

:rolleyes: I suppose I should have posted this in GQ.

Maybe not Canadians, but quite a few others are coming across the northern border.

Source: Boeing Is Awarded Border Contract

They may not be Mexicans and others from Central and South America, but friends along the northern border tell me it’s everyone else instead, including drugs. One deputy sheriff I had the opportunity to speak with while on a wildland fire near the border told me that most of the people they catch are Asian, or from the Middle East, in addition to the drug planes.

Source: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-07/Securing2006-07-19-voa46.cfm
Crossing the US-Canadian border is a cakewalk, compared to the US-Mexican border.

Obviously some do. What’s your point? Semantics?

I was just curious.

So in your opinion the majority of people crossing into the United States understand that they are acting in an illegal manner. If so, then a majority of Mexicans likely understand that it is an illegal act. So why wouldn’t you frame it as an “Illegal Immigration Problem” to be negotiated between the two countries? I may have misunderstood you, but framing it as an “Immigration Problem” implies that the issue is one of securing legitimate means of legal access to the US.

There is a demand for low cost labor. It is also illegal for US employers to hire them. Americans rent or sell them homes. US banks allow them to open accounts and on and on.

It involves people immigrating. If you want to use “illegal” to describe it, who cares? It is about securing legal access no matter how you “frame” it.

We seem to have a logical breakdown here. The USA is trying to prevent illegal immigration from mexico. mexico doesn’t like this, yet Mexico refuse to allow immigration from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvator, etc. The USA emplys illegal immigrants 9in violation of federal laws). A Massachusetts gubnatorial candiddate (Deval patrick) advocates issueing drivers licences to illegal aliens.
Why doesn’t the USA adopt a reasonable stance? issue work permits to aliens, make them pay taxes (no more underground economy), and control immigration. And mexico had better start caring for its OWN illegal aliens, instead of beating them and deporting them!

Look, I’m stuck in the frozen north, oddly enough daily doses of Mexican demands for greater immigration access to the US don’t show up here a lot. Is Mexico asking for increased worker visa/permits? If so, how would an increase in the number of legal avenues to migrate decrease the number of people knowingly following illegal methods? Is Mexico asking for an increase in prosecuting US citizens that knowingly break the law to bring Mexicans across the border?