Are you talking about the agreement between Fox and Bush where it was agreed that if México stepped up vigilance against illegal immigration on our southern border then Bush would pass some type of immigration reform? The gringo reasoning was is it much cheaper to pay México to do this than repatriation to their countries of origen?
You haven’t answered me about restrictions on land ownership by foreigners in the USA. You tried to dodge the question by stating there are no federal laws against it but failed to provide a cite. You have repeatedly falsely claimed in this thread and the past that foreigners cannot own property in México and opined at the unfairness of this biased treatment of foreigners by the Mexican government. I get the impression you favor a quid pro quo arrangement in these matters.
I’m not arguing. You haven’t answered. Please reread and answer. I’m asking you to explain a claim that you made. Double Sheeze.
What restrictions? I told you I didn’t think there were restrictions, as even illelags can evidently own land. You think there is, fine. What are these restrictions you are referring to?
But again, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE LAW IS OR ISN’T IN MEXICO. Triple Sheese.
What does land ownership have to do with the OP? The subject was brought up by an American poster and my reply was the same: What does it have to do with immigration? So why are you so interested in the Mexican law? You really want to spin it into another unfounded negative about México but you aren’t being successful.
Now then, since when does “I think” pull any weight in GD? Is land ownership by foreigners restricted in any way in the USA?
Yes, it is. Basing your reply on one newspaper article from San Diego is pretty lame.
I don’t think we have any responsibility whatsoever. Our only responsibility is to act in the best interests of the US, like every other country’s responsibility to act in their own self-interests. If Mexico has problems, they should deal with them. Their problem is their government. Do you want us to invade and remove the Mexican government? We are great at occupations, ya know? Anything besides overthrowing their government, IMO, is enabling the corrupt leaders.
There only looks like three options to me:
Do nothing and let the Mexican people deal with the problem
Make agreements to help Mexico thereby enabling it’s corrupt government
Remove the corrupt government
The US is damned if they do, damned if we don’t. Should we help out every other country by signing agreements that aren’t in the best interests of the United States? Should our foreign policy be to help out every other country? Many problems in the world are caused by corrupt government. Should we invade Mexico and overthrow their government to help its people out, or should we sign agreements to help Mexico and their corrupt government?
Well, the law banning foriegners from owning land in parts of Mexico is still on the books, right? Do you claim it has no validity? You know why it’s still there, don’t you?
No one can’t prove a negative. Thus, I can’t prove there are no laws stopping foriegners from owning land in the USA. But you have been here on the SDMB and you know that you don’t ask me to prove a negative, you have to give a cite otherwise. I can’t prove the Washington Monument isn’t an alien rocket ship- however, I don’t have to. You have to prove it is.
But there are none I have heard of. They’d likely be unconstitutional.
The draconian immigration laws in Mexico existed before either GWB or Fox were President. As you well know, to be an “Illegal alien” in Mexico is a felony. Interesting that Mexican protestors were up in arms here in America when the USA also suggested making “illegals”= Felons.
The land laws in Mexico are important as too many dudes are claiming that the US Imigration laws are somehow unfair and biased, whereas bigotry is written into the current Mexican Constitution.
In fact, the USA has very liberal and fair Immigration policies. There is no nation on earth (that anyone would want to immigrate to) that has 100% open and free immigration.
Though I don’t agree with you at all, I’m going to accept this premise-- that the U.S.’ only responsibility is to act in its own self-interest-- for the sake of argument. Assuming this is true…
Given the direct impact that NAFTA has had on the problem of immigration in this country, how do you reckon it’s in the U.S.’ best interest to keep it on the table? If you believe that immigration is a serious problem in this country that demands immediate action, why would you perpetuate a policy that aggravates the problem?
Another issue with your argument is you’re saying it’s all Mexico’s problem. The root of the problem might originate in Mexico, but emigration is Mexico’s problem. Immigration is the U.S.’ problem, not Mexico’s problem. The problem of immigration exists within our borders, and it impacts our citizens. Therefore this phenomenon is our problem too. It’s just not reasonable to assess this issue without acknowledging the dynamic between both countries.
Actually I think Spain has pretty close to almost no immigration laws. Immigration there is a recent phenomenon (since about 2002) and they’ve never faced anything like it. It’s funny, go to a message board and you’ll see the exact same arguments laid out for the U.S.-Mexico debate as the Spain Immigration debate. It definitely provides an opportunity, if you live in the U.S., to get some distance and see things a bit more objectively.
Yes, I want to erase those distinctions, at least as they apply legally. I say if you want to be an American citizen, you should be able to be one. It should be up to me what country I claim to be a citizen of, not the luck of where I happened to be born.
Tax the new immigrants to supply funds for the necessary infrastructure. Supply and demand will take care of the rest. If enough people want it, it will be built.
I wouldn’t shut the door. When the costs of moving here are no longer offset by the rewards of living here, people will stop coming and immigration will tail off.
Yes. I suppose we should screen people for diseases, too. Maybe even require inoculation against the worst of them, but I’m sure that would be expensive. Ordinarily I’m against bureaucracy, but it is in everybody’s best interests to keep out the worst communicable diseases.
Because it isn’t that big of a drawback. I don’t know why you pick something that 50 states are perfectly capable of dealing with on a daily basis, and using it as an excuse for closing up the national border.
Economically? Yes. I’d like to see the free flow of labor along with goods and services between countries. Culturally and politically, we can stay separate or assimilate, I can take it or leave it, whatever happens.
We can have this debate somewhere else. I think it is relevant to the immigration debate.
Does it really hurt anybody to have people of different cultures living next to each other? I’m not seeing this as a downside to immigration, I’m sorry if we differ on that point.
No but you could post laws that DO prohibit foreign land ownership. And there are many restrictions and prohibitions on foreigners owning land in the USA.
Can you post a link to the Mexican laws concerning immigration from Central America? Didn’t think so. You base your opinion on articles that show mistreatment of undocumented aliens. The law is another story. And it is obvious you haven’t a clue as to what the law on this matter is.
Also felonies do not exist under Mexican penal code. You based that mistaken claim on a website that is riddled with false information.
My my my, bigotry??? How are a country’s laws applied to non-citizens considered bigotry? Every country has the right to limit a foreigner’s activities within its borders. The US doesn’t allow a naturalized citizen let alone a foreiner to become president is one very obvious example. In the links that follow I’ll prove to you and magellan that the USA not only has laws restricting foreign ownership but outright prohibits it. So enough of that bullshit about México discriminanting against US citizens.
A few items from a pdf file called “Alien Land Ownership Guide”:
California: “Purchase of inland lake and unsegregated swamp and overflowed lands requires an affidavit that purchaser is a US Citizen or intends to become one, and is a resident of the state”
Hawaii: “Purchase or lease of residential lots on Oahu are restricted to US citizens or a declarant alien residing in Hawaii for 5 o more years”
Minnesota: “No natural person shall acquire directly or indirectly any interest in agricultural land unless he is a US citizen or permanent resident alien”
Mississippi: “Nonresident alien may not acquire and hold more than 230 acres of land for industrial development or for longer than 5 years for residential purpose”
New Mexico: “No alien ineligible for citizen ship may own real estate”
And many states restrict ownership of agricultural land by foreigners. So much for it being unconstitutional. And what was that you said about “bigotry” being written into law?
The Oklahoma Const is not a poster here. Use Quotes for quoting posters, please. Otherwise there are these things called quotation marks “”“”. IANAL and do not have time to go over your cites one by one. But let us take #1: Note the line “nor to aliens or persons not citizens of the United States who may become bona fide residents of this State”. Thus, citizens of other nations can own land in OK, as long as they are “bona fide residents of this State”, which only bans Illegal aliens.
You cited articles claiming mistreatment. Now provide links to the law you claim to be draconian.
This law applies to any alien that resides either outside of Oklahoma or outside of the USA. Non-resident aliens cannot own property in the state of Oklahoma. Do you know what a “non-resident alien” is? From your post it appears you haven’t a clue.
That means a foreigner that resides in a country other than the USA cannot own property in Oklahoma. As an example, a Canadian (no visa required) enters the USA legally but with no intention of staying beyond the legal alloted time and wants to buy a home in Oklahoma. Are you telling me that this is allowed?
How about this scenario:
Bill Gates, enters México with a tourist permit, buys a farm in San Luis Potosi. He gets title. There are no restrictions regarding his residency.
Carlos Slim, one of the world’s richest men who enters the USA on a tourist visa is prohibited from owning land in Oklahoma. Because he is a non-resident alien.
That’s becuase you picked an area of Mexico where there are no restrictions. However, a foriegner in the “zone” cannot own real property there in Mexioc even if he is a resident.
And you picked OK, which represents a tiny % and does allow non-citizens to own property- as long as they live there.
I showed all kind of restrictions throughout the USA. Oklahoma is just one and comprises 2% of the US territory. There are other states that also restrict or prohibit foreigners from owning land that you are conveniently overlooking. Besides I’ve proven that foreigners can indeed own property within the restricted zone by simply complying with different requirements than those of citizens. Bill Gates can start a Mexican corporation and buy all of the resorts in Cancun or he can put property in a bank trust. Can Carlos Slim do that in Oklahoma? Can he own farmland in Minnesota? You’ve been ranting all along that México’s law is “bigoted”. You made the claim that there were no restrictions when your country actually has more restrictive policies.
Now show me some of México’s draconian laws. I want to see statutes. Articles from erroneous sources you have so far linked to are proof of nothing. Let me see if you can actually back up another one of your wild claims. I highly doubt it.
If someone on the SDMB is rejecting appeal to facts as “appeal to authority,” :rolleyes: …Yeah, I don’t think you understand what the fallacy is.
Pinochet really existed, the School of the Americas really existed, all this is documented history. We didn’t get this from some invisible pink golden plates read by our former minister.