A lot of people who are comming into the US from mexico, when pressed on the issue on not going through legal channels, simply state that they are not criminal / “How can being Human be against the law?”
Do these people simply not understand that there is a correct way to do things? Or do they simply not care?
::: sigh ::: here we go again, and this isn’t going to stay in GQ for long.
Unless you have a preexisting close family relationship or skilled job offer in the U.S. for which qualified available U.S. workers cannot be found, you basically have no way to immigrate legally to the U.S. And even if you do, it can take many, many years to get to the front of the line. Cite. And another cite.
More the latter, I’m sure. If you shout ‘La Migra!’ at a crowd of the undocumented, they don’t respond with a baffled ‘Que?’
The proper way is tedious, expensive, uncertain and has a long waiting list.
The Coyote is willing to get you across today.
It’s not that they don’t care, it’s that the reward is perceived to be worth the risk.
The Lizard in a border state.
<mod>
I’m sending this across the border into Great Debates.
</mod>
[QUOTE=The Sonoran Lizard King]
The proper way is tedious, expensive, uncertain and has a long waiting list.
The Coyote is willing to get you across today.
It’s not that they don’t care, it’s that the reward is perceived to be worth the risk.
[/QUOTE]
…and that’s really the answer to the original OP in a nutshell. I would only add that the need for the rewards (a job primarily) has to be met now and not based on immigration rules that will only bring you to that job years later, if at all.
[QUOTE=ChicanoRojo]
…and that’s really the answer to the original OP in a nutshell. I would only add that the need for the rewards (a job primarily) has to be met now and not based on immigration rules that will only bring you to that job years later, if at all.
[/QUOTE]
No, because what they are doing is still illegal. Just because they need a job now doesn’t give them a free pass to come here. The OP is asking why they don’t seem to recognize that. It’s a bit of a semantic debate. Calling someone an illegal alien implies that the person himself is “illegal”. That’s a pretty silly argument. I think we all know that the refernce is to the act of being here illegally.
They must or they wouldn’t resort to sneaking in.
Personally I can’t understand why so many of the American people I’ve spoken to seem to think it’s easy to immigrate…
“why don’t you just come and live here?”
Because they won’t let me…
[QUOTE=Meeko]
Do these people simply not understand that there is a correct way to do things? Or do they simply not care?
[/QUOTE]
That’s like asking if someone driving 10 mph over the speed limit don’t know there’s a correct way to drive. As already noted, the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk of getting caught.
All I know is that it took me roughly 11 years from the start of the process to getting my green card. It never occured to me to just walk in like it was no big deal.
[QUOTE=Eva Luna]
::: sigh ::: here we go again, and this isn’t going to stay in GQ for long.
Unless you have a preexisting close family relationship or skilled job offer in the U.S. for which qualified available U.S. workers cannot be found, you basically have no way to immigrate legally to the U.S. And even if you do, it can take many, many years to get to the front of the line.
[/QUOTE]
It’s far easier for a Mexican to immigrate into the USA legally than for a Central American to migrate legally into Mexico. Why should the USA accept Mexican immigrants if Mexico won’t accept it’s southern neighbors migrants?
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=20685
"In the last four years, detentions of illegal immigrants in Mexico have grown nearly 75 percent, according to the Mexican National Immigration Institute. Mexico has tightened controls along its border with Guatemala under pressure from the U.S., said Father Barilli. Plus, stopping the flow of Central American immigrants gives Mexicans a better chance of getting jobs in the U.S., he said. "
http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=762
"SCR 118 urged Mexico to reform its own immigration policies, which are far
more restrictive than those in the United States. …“This is to point out the hypocrisy of Mexico’s statements,” Hollingsworth
said. He added, “There is not a lot we can do without backing of the federal
government.”
The source of that “hypocrisy” lies in Mexico’s 1917 constitution. While it
does include one of the same controversial clauses as the U.S.
Constitution–that anyone born on the country’s soil is automatically granted
citizenship–those not born in the country face severe restrictions that
immigrants to the United States do not.
For instance, Article 33 states that foreigners may be deported without any
legal recourse: “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.” It also states that, “Foreigners may not in any way participate in
the political affairs of the country.”
Mexicans are also legally given priority over foreigners for employment.
Even naturalized foreigners cannot serve in the military; they also lose
their Mexican citizenship if they move back to their “country of origin” for
over five years.
In one of the more unusual clauses, Mexican women do not have the same power
to confer citizenship to their husbands via marriage as Mexican men enjoy.
Article 30, section B-II, grants naturalization to “a foreign woman who
marries a Mexican man.” There is no matching clause for Mexican women and
foreign men.
According to a fact sheet distributed by Hollingsworth’s office, “Mexico
routinely fills 10 or 12 buses a day with undocumented Central Americans,”
deporting 240,000 last year alone. It claims Mexico has legalized only
15,000 migrants in the past five years.
Meanwhile, it said, “Mexico has been demanding that the U.S. ignore, alter
or abolish its own immigration laws,” even while illegally immigrating into
Mexico is a felony. It added that, “Migrants in the United States have held
huge demonstrations demanding more rights.” "
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=762
"SCR 118 urged Mexico to reform its own immigration policies, which are far
more restrictive than those in the United States. …“This is to point out the hypocrisy of Mexico’s statements,” Hollingsworth
said.
The source of that “hypocrisy” lies in Mexico’s 1917 constitution. While it
does include one of the same controversial clauses as the U.S.
Constitution–that anyone born on the country’s soil is automatically granted
citizenship–those not born in the country face severe restrictions that
immigrants to the United States do not.
[/QUOTE]
The same controversial clause? There is no controversy here over that.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Mexicans are also legally given priority over foreigners for employment.
Even naturalized foreigners cannot serve in the military; they also lose
their Mexican citizenship if they move back to their “country of origin” for
over five years.
[/QUOTE]
FYI legal resident aliens in the USA lose their residency if they spend more than 30 days outside of the US in a 12 month period.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
In one of the more unusual clauses, Mexican women do not have the same power
to confer citizenship to their husbands via marriage as Mexican men enjoy.
Article 30, section B-II, grants naturalization to “a foreign woman who
marries a Mexican man.” There is no matching clause for Mexican women and
foreign men.
[/QUOTE]
Is that a fact? Would you care to wager on the veracity of that claim? That is pure bullshit.
Now let’s see how the US compares to Mexico concerning the children of its citizens born in another country:
According to the Mexican Constitution Article 30 Section A
Paragraph II:
"II. Los que nazcan en el extranjero, hijos de padres mexicanos nacidos en territorio nacional, de padre mexicano nacido en territorio nacional, o de madre mexicana nacida en territorio nacional;
(Children born overseas to Mexican parents born in Mexican territory, or to a Mexican father born in Mexican territory, or to a Mexican mother born in Mexican territory.)
Paragraph III
III. Los que nazcan en el extranjero, hijos de padres mexicanos por naturalización, de padre mexicano por naturalización, o de madre mexicana por naturalización
(Children born overseas to naturalized Mexican parents, or to a naturalized Mexican father or to a naturalized Mexican mother.)"
Now let’s see how the USA treats children born overseas to citizens of the USA (please take note of the “unusual clauses” that distinguish the requirements for children born out of wedlock to US fathers and US mothers) :
Child born abroad to two U.S. citizens: A child born outside of the United States or its outlying possessions to parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States, is entitled to citizenship provided one of the parents had, prior to the birth of the child, been resident in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. (No specific period of time is required.)
Child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one non U.S. citizen on or after November 14, 1986: A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for five years, at least two years of which were after she/he reached the age of fourteen. This period of physical presence must have taken place prior to the birth of the child.
Child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent between December 24, 1952 and November 3, 1986: A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent, may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. citizen parent had, prior to the birth of the child, been physically present in the United States for a period of ten years, at least five years of which, were after she/ he reached the age of fourteen.
Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother: A child born outside of the United States and out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother is entitled to U.S. citizenship providing the U.S. citizen mother had been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least one year at some time prior to the birth of her child.
Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father: A child born outside of the United States to an U.S. citizen father where there is no marriage to the non-American mother is entitled to U.S. citizenship providing the American citizen father had been physically present in the United States for the period of time as specified in previous paragraphs for children born in wedlock to one U.S. citizen and one non-U.S. citizen parent, either before or after November 14, 1986; and the following is fulfilled:
• The father must sign a sworn statement agreeing to provide financial support for the child until s/he reaches the age of 18 years; and
• One of the following conditions is met:
• the father provides a written statement acknowledging paternity; or
• the child is legitimated under local law or
• paternity is established by a competent court before the child attains the age of 18 years; and
• The alien mother must complete an “Affidavit to establish paternity of child” before a consular officer.
PHYSICAL PRESENCE: This is the actual time when the parent was physically present in the United States, not simply as a resident. This means that any travel outside the United States, including vacation, should be excluded. Please submit old passports if available, as evidence. If unavailable, other evidence may be required. Note: Any periods of time spent overseas with the United States Military/Government etc. may be computed as physical presence in the United States for transmission of citizenship purposes. Time spent as a dependent of a United States Military/Government employee may also be computed as physical presence. Military records may be requested. This is the actual time when the parent was physically present in the United States, not simply as a resident. This means that any travel outside the United States, including vacation, should be excluded. Please submit old passports if available, as evidence. If unavailable, other evidence may be required. Note: Any periods of time spent overseas with the United States Military/Government etc. may be computed as physical presence in the United States for transmission of citizenship purposes. Time spent as a dependent of a United States Military/Government employee may also be computed as physical presence. Military records may be requested.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
According to a fact sheet distributed by Hollingsworth’s office, “Mexico
routinely fills 10 or 12 buses a day with undocumented Central Americans,”
deporting 240,000 last year alone. It claims Mexico has legalized only
15,000 migrants in the past five years.
Meanwhile, it said, “Mexico has been demanding that the U.S. ignore, alter
or abolish its own immigration laws,” even while illegally immigrating into
Mexico is a felony. "
[/QUOTE]
After reading the completely false quote about Article 30, Section B, Paragraph 2, excuse me if I don’t take this guy’s “facts” as reliable.
The above should read:
"According to the Mexican Constitution Article 30 Section A
A) Son mexicanos por nacimiento (Mexicans by birth):
Paragraph II:"
[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
FYI legal resident aliens in the USA lose their residency if they spend more than 30 days outside of the US in a 12 month period.
[/QUOTE]
"You may lose your permanent residence status if you commit an act that makes you removable from the United States under the law in section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If you commit such an act, you may be brought before the immigration courts to determine your right to remain a Permanent Resident.
You may be found to have abandoned your permanent resident status if you:
Move to another country intending to live there permanently.
Remain outside of the US for more than one year without obtaining a reentry permit or returning resident visa. However in determining whether your status has been abandoned any length of absence from the US may be considered, even if it is less than one year.
Remain outside of the US for more than two years after issuance of a reentry permit without obtaining a returning resident visa. However in determining whether your status has been abandoned any length of absence from the US may be considered, even if it is less than one year.
Fail to file income tax returns while living outside of the US for any period.
Declare yourself a “nonimmigrant” on your tax returns."
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
It’s far easier for a Mexican to immigrate into the USA legally than for a Central American to migrate legally into Mexico. Why should the USA accept Mexican immigrants if Mexico won’t accept it’s southern neighbors migrants?
[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with anything? Does the U.S. really want to use Mexico as a model for how a country should treat its citizens, let alone refugees or economic migrants? I’m American, and I sure don’t.
Besides, I said nothing whatsoever about how many or what kind of immigrants the U.S. should accept; I simply stated that for the vast majority of humanity, there is no way to immigrate to the U.S. legally, and that even for the few who do have a means to immigrate legally, it can take decades.
[QUOTE=Eva Luna]
Incorrect.
"You may lose your permanent residence status if you commit an act that makes you removable from the United States under the law in section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If you commit such an act, you may be brought before the immigration courts to determine your right to remain a Permanent Resident.
You may be found to have abandoned your permanent resident status if you:
Move to another country intending to live there permanently.
Remain outside of the US for more than one year without obtaining a reentry permit or returning resident visa. However in determining whether your status has been abandoned any length of absence from the US may be considered, even if it is less than one year.
Remain outside of the US for more than two years after issuance of a reentry permit without obtaining a returning resident visa. However in determining whether your status has been abandoned any length of absence from the US may be considered, even if it is less than one year.
Fail to file income tax returns while living outside of the US for any period.
Declare yourself a “nonimmigrant” on your tax returns."
[/QUOTE]
Yes, my mistake. I was misinformed by someone who has a green card and gets grilled heavily on how much time they were out of the country each time they return to the US. Maybe they were thinking about this part:
“However in determining whether your status has been abandoned any length of absence from the US may be considered, even if it is less than one year.”
[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
The same controversial clause? There is no controversy here over that.
Is that a fact? Would you care to wager on the veracity of that claim? That is pure bullshit.
After reading the completely false quote about Article 30, Section B, Paragraph 2, excuse me if I don’t take this guy’s “facts” as reliable.
[/QUOTE]
It is controversial. Some dudes in the USA dont like the fact that an illegal can slip over the border, have her child here a day alter, and that child is automatically eligable for US Citizenship.
Yes, it is a fact. That was a resolution SCR118, presented by Senator Dennis Hollingsworth R, & Sen. Jim Battin, R-La, read into the Congressional record. I can aassume that it was fact checked by expert on those Senator’s staffs, and the facts in evidence weren’t disputed by anyone.
However, those Senators have a public address- please write call or email them and tell them their claims are “pure bullshit”. Let us know their response will you? :rolleyes: I am sorry if (as far as legal facts go, that is, opinions are a different matter) I’d take the word of two US Senators, and a dozen plus of the top legal minds on Capital Hill over a poster who has already been corrected.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
It is controversial. Some dudes in the USA dont like the fact that an illegal can slip over the border, have her child here a day alter, and that child is automatically eligable for US Citizenship.
[/QUOTE]
I said it isn’t controversial here. If you look at my location, it says México. Anyone born in Mexico is a Mexican citizen. Haven’t heard or seen the slightest bit of controversy about that fact in the news or newspapers. If it’s controversial it sure is being kept quiet! 
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Yes, it is a fact. That was a resolution SCR118, presented by Senator Dennis Hollingsworth R, & Sen. Jim Battin, R-La, read into the Congressional record. I can aassume that it was fact checked by expert on those Senator’s staffs, and the facts in evidence weren’t disputed by anyone.
However, those Senators have a public address- please write call or email them and tell them their claims are “pure bullshit”. Let us know their response will you? :rolleyes: I am sorry if (as far as legal facts go, that is, opinions are a different matter) I’d take the word of two US Senators, and a dozen plus of the top legal minds on Capital Hill over a poster who has already been corrected.
[/QUOTE]
Well they should fire their “fact” checkers amiguito, because the following quotes from your cite are unequivocally wrong and can be easily “fact checked” to prove it:
This is what you say is a fact? The Mexican Constitution says no such thing. Here is Article 30, section B-II:
"B) Son mexicanos por naturalización:
II. La mujer o el varón extranjeros que contraigan matrimonio con varón o con mujer mexicanos, y tengan o establezcan su domicilio dentro del territorio nacional y cumplan con los demás requisitos al efecto señale la Ley.
Translation:
"Foreign woman or man that marry a Mexican man or woman and have or establish residence in Mexico and meet all lawful requirements.
Now for another obvious example of the erroneous bullshit in your cited publication:
Here is the very FIRST article of the Mexican Military Service Law:
“ARTICULO 1.- De acuerdo con lo dispuesto en el artículo 5o. de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, se declara obligatorio y de orden público el servicio de las armas para todos los mexicanos por nacimiento o naturalización, quienes lo prestarán en el Ejército o en la Armada, como soldados, clases u oficiales, de acuerdo con sus capacidades y aptitudes.”
Translation:
“According to the stipulation in Article 5 of the Mexican Constitution it is declared obligatory and of public order armed service for all Mexicans by birth or naturalization…”
So according to your cited article service in the Mexican armed forces is denied naturalized citizens. But it is not only NOT denied them but is actually compulsary. I’d say there is much debate here, wouldn’t you?
Maybe you need to get on the phone to your representatives in Washington and let them know they need to get their facts straight.
CBEscapee, let’s be generous and assume that the Senators in question had got themselves hands on an old copy of Constitution of the EUM regarding the citizenship by marriage (amended 1997).
HOWEVER, I must bring your attention to the following passage in Article 32 (third paragraph) of the Constitution:
“To belong to the regular active force of the Army in peacetime or those of the Navy or the Air Force at any time, or hold any office or commission in any of them, it is required to be Mexican by birth. The same requirement shall be indispensable to serve as masters, mates, pilots, engineers and generally speaking all officers of a vessel or aircraft under the Mexican Merchant Ensign, as well as to serve as Captain of the Port in a maritime or air facility.”
This sounds to me as if naturalized Mexicans are required to go to the call of the nation, but only limited to service as reservists or conscripts, or in wartime, and then only as grunts and barred altogether from the officer corps or positions of major responsibility.
Here’s something from the Organic Law of the Mexican Navy:
Article 47 - To join the Mexican Navy it is required that you:
I. Be a Mexican by birth
II. Not acuire any other citizenship
III. Be in full enjoyment of civil and political rights
IV. Be free of criminal records …
V. Meet all regulatory requirements etc. …
Organic Law of the Mexican Army and Air Force:
*Article 4: The Mexican Army and Air Force are made up of:
I. The *Mexicans by birth who do not acquire any other citizenship ** and who lend their services to the air and land armed branches, subject to the militayry laws and regulations.
II. The resources the nation makes available to them; and
III. Buildings and installations.
Article 5 of the Military Services Law says that Mexicans by birth who also have another citizenship, once they complete their compulsory service, may no longer considered part of the regular active force. So evidently they CAN serve, but they can never become “regulars”, that is, they cannot make a career of the service. So the US forces are more liberal than the Mexican in that aspect.