# To Hell with the House! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 6, 2006, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510 "2006-04-06T01:32:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/121 "2006-04-25T01:03:58Z")
You make some good points. Billions of dollars have been stolen or destroyed by those people crossing the border (mostly in water and roots and berries)–(I mean the southern border, not the northen border). The Canadians are always quite polite and respectful, they wouldn’t take a thing. I mean, there’s such a canucopia of things for them to take. ---
**Author:** ![Gustave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7c8e57/32.png) [@Gustave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustave)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/122 "2006-04-25T01:13:59Z")
[QUOTE=cerberus] Could you please **grow the Hell up**???!!! [/QUOTE] **cerberus** is as **cerberus** does. ---
**Author:** ![Gustave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7c8e57/32.png) [@Gustave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustave)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/123 "2006-04-25T01:16:51Z")
[QUOTE=Mapache] Cerberus said: [/QUOTE] As for you, mister husband, if you love your wife so much, then try immigrating and living and working legally in Mexico as a non-citizen. Try to own land, try to naturalise fully. Really. Good luck with that. > [@](#): > > I"m married to a Mexican woman. I have lived in Mexico for twenty two years. I work legally, I own land, and I could be naturalized if I wanted to. What is your point? We are in fact considering that. She has an offer from the airport in DF, and will eventally inherent land. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/124 "2006-04-25T02:05:28Z")
[QUOTE=cerberus] Some rather interesting links here: [http://www.todossantos.cc/meximmig.html](http://www.todossantos.cc/meximmig.html) [http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm](http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm) [http://www.house.gov/duncan/en040606.htm](http://www.house.gov/duncan/en040606.htm) [/QUOTE] I don’t really see the anything that interesting with the first two links, but feel free to elaborate. As for the Duncan link, he’s an idiot who would rather rely on some well-funded neocon group’s complaints than actually research an issue. Since he’s not a poster here, I’ll ask you for the cites, since you’re using him to attempt to defend your position. So, keeping in mind that I’m not defending the Constitution of Mexico (I have some problems with it, some of which he actually got right), [here](http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=93) is the English translation of the constitution as of 2002. [QUOTE=John Duncan] In accordance with Article 130, immigrants – even legal ones – may not become members of the clergy, either. [/QUOTE] Cite? Here, [let me help you](http://csmonitor.com/2005/0720/p01s04-woam.html) with that one. [QUOTE=John Duncan] •Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters.” [/QUOTE] Cite? Here, I’ll help you again. While I’m not a fan of their border and coastal ownership restrictions, what JJ forgets to mention is that the very next sentence states: [QUOTE=Constitution of Mexico as of 2002] The State has the power to concede the same right to foreigners, as long as after verifying with the Secretariat of Relations that they will respect the lands and waters as nationals would, and will not invoke the protection of their governments. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=John Duncan] •Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.” What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16 states, “In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right. [/QUOTE] Cite? Article 11 says no such thing, and as for Article 16, Citizen’s Arrests are also allowed in all states in the U.S. if a felony is committed, and in many states, even some misdemeanors qualify. Shit, he really should stop quoting the Washington “The Messiah owns us” Times, especially when they’re just acting as a soapbox for Frank Gaffney’s “Domino’s pizza of the policy business” organization, The Center for Security Policy, who get most of their money from Scaife and Friends™ (who would have guessed? Okay, I would have). For those who think that Gaffney’s name sounds vaguely familiar, he’s one of the guys behind the SDI (Star Wars), he’s a neocon’s neocon, and is most famous for this little tidbit: [QUOTE=Frank Gaffney] Whether the best way to do it [neutralize Al-Jazeera] is with bombs or through other means is something we could discuss, but I think it’s fair game, under these circumstances, given the way it conducts itself. [/QUOTE] Got any more fun cites? ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/125 "2006-04-25T02:23:20Z")
Cites? Naturalized citizens cannot serve in the federal legislature: > [@](#): > > Article 55 - The following are required to be a deputy: > > I. To be a Mexican citizen by birth in the exercise of his or her rights; > > II. To be twenty-one years of age on the day of the election; > > III. To have come from the state in which the election is held, or a neighbor of it, for more than six months of effective residence before the date of election. Naturalized US citizens can hold any elected office, save that of US President or Vice President. A naturalized citizen is currently Governor of California. Foreignors may not protest in Mexico, and may be tossed out per the pleasure of the government: So, how would, say, Guatamalans residing in Mexico illegally last after a public protest in Mexico City? Not long. > [@](#): > > Chapter III > > Of Foreigners > > Article 33 - Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualities determined in Article 30. They have the right to the guarantees of Chapter I of the first title of this Constitution, but the Executive of the Union has the exclusive right to expel from the national territory, immediately and without necessity of judicial proceedings, all foreigners whose stay it judges inconvenient. Foreigners may not, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the country. Naturalized citizens may be stripped of citizenship more easily than native citizens. > [@](#): > > Article 37 > > A) No Mexican by birth may be deprived of his or her nationality. > > B) Mexican nationality by naturalization is lost in the following cases: > > I. For voluntary acquisition of a foreign nationality; for using any public instrument as a foreigner, for using a foreign passport, and for accepting or using titles of nobility that imply submission to a foreign State, and; > > II. For residing for five continuous years in foreign territory. Only citizens may protest: > [@](#): > > Article 9 - The right to associate or peacefully assemble for any lawful purpose shall not be abridged; _but only citizens of the Republic may do so in order to take part in the political affairs of the country._ No armed gathering has the right to deliberate. No assembly or gathering that has as its object to make a petition or present a protest because of some act to an authority, shall be illegal or be dissolved, provided injuries are not suffered by the authority, nor use was made of violence or threats to intimidate it, or obligate it to respond in the manner desired. Restrictions on ownership of land by non-citizens: > [@](#): > > Article 27 - Lands and waters understood to be within the limits of the national territory belong originally to the Nation, which has had and has the right of transmitting their ownership to particular persons, thus constituting them as private property. Expropriations may only be for cause of public utility, and by means of indemnization. > > … > > The ability to acquire the domain of the lands and waters of the Nation will be regulated by the following prescriptions: > > I. Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican associations have the right to obtain ownership of lands, waters, and their accessories, or to obtain mining or ground water concessions. _The State has the power to concede the same right to foreigners, as long as after verifying with the Secretariat of Relations that they will respect the lands and waters as nationals would, and will not invoke the protection of their governments_. The penalty in case of violation of the contract is loss to the Nation of the benefits that were acquired from the concessions. **In a zone of one hundred kilometers’ distance from the borders, and fifty from the coast, no foreigners shall be permitted to acquire direct ownership of land or water for any reason**. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/126 "2006-04-25T02:27:37Z")
More fun cites: Naturalized citizens as second-class citizens: In service and in employment: > [@](#): > > Article 32 - The law will regulate the exercise of rights that Mexican legislation grants to Mexicans who possess another nationality, and establish standards to avoid conflicts of double nationality. > > … > > In time of peace, no foreigner may serve in the Army, or in police or public security forces. **To belong actively to the Army in time of peace, or to the National Navy or the Air Force at any moment, and discharge any duty or commission in them, one is required to be Mexican by birth. The same quality is indispensable for captains, pilots, owners, machinists, mechanics, and in general for all personnel who staff any ship or aircraft that carries the Mexican flag or merchant insignia**. Also, Mexican citizenship by birth is necessary to exercise the responsibilities of port captain, and all the services of director of an airport. > > **Mexicans will be preferred to foreigners in equality of circumstances, for all classes of concessions and all employment** , duties, or commissions of government for which the quality of citizenship is not indispensable. ---
**Author:** ![Gustave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7c8e57/32.png) [@Gustave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustave)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/127 "2006-04-25T02:31:14Z")
[QUOTE=cerberus] …who committed fraud to obtain false papers, a native(?) US citizen who aids, abets and marries the criminal, [/QUOTE] There was nothing illegal in what I did to marry her. I never “abetted” her in any crime. That’s my OP. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/128 "2006-04-25T02:36:45Z")
[QUOTE=cerberus] Cites? Naturalized citizens cannot serve in the federal legislature: [/QUOTE] Nor did I say they could, nor did I question the veracity of that statement. > [@](#): > > Foreignors may not protest in Mexico, and may be tossed out per the pleasure of the government: So, how would, say, Guatamalans residing in Mexico illegally last after a public protest in Mexico City? Not long. I don’t recall questioning this one either, although I’m guessing it’s not enforced quite as strictly as you seem to think. Regardless, I didn’t say a word about it. > [@](#): > > Naturalized citizens may be stripped of citizenship more easily than native citizens. I don’t remember asking for this cite either. > [@](#): > > Restrictions on ownership of land by non-citizens: Heck, I mentioned that I personally have issues with the border and coastal restrictions, but I did remark on the important sentence that completely changes the meaning of Gaffney’s quote, and that he happened to leave out, as it doesn’t just take the wind out of his sails, it’s sucks it up like a Hoover. Admit it, you didn’t actually read my post, did you? I stated up front that I have issues with some parts of the Constitution of Mexico. I then asked for cites about a few specific things. You failed to address a single one of those. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/129 "2006-04-25T02:51:32Z")
In [this case, the illegal had a visa and overstayed](http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Bvdw). As in [this case](http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00C1V0), the illegal overstayed a visa. In these cases, we have an abuse of an initially legal entry. In [this case](http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BVbP), initial entry was not legal, and no clear remedy is available (nor should it be…). In [this case](http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CQZb), fraudelant ID screws the pooch. Your conduct in enabling someone’s illegal status here is uinethical. It seems nuts to me that such conduct isn’t at least a misdemeanor. What severely irritates me in this case is the fraudulent use of temporary visas to gain entry to the US, and then the enabling of such abuse by the government in forgiving it. It invites the abuse of the laws, and is an insult to those who immigarte honestly and honorably. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/130 "2006-04-25T02:55:21Z")
My initial link to Gaffney was solely to get a link to the constitutional issues. The point of raising the issues is to highlight the utter hypocrisy in having the Mexicans who are here illegally protesting for rights that foreignors do not have in Mexico. This is compounded by Fox’s lobbying of the US for milder immigration laws (while not “milding” his own laws). I have no interest in turning this into Gaffney’s politics. My additional cites are drawn from your links to the English language version of the Mexican Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/131 "2006-04-25T03:05:08Z")
[QUOTE=cerberus] Your conduct in enabling someone’s illegal status here is uinethical. It seems nuts to me that such conduct isn’t at least a misdemeanor. What severely irritates me in this case is the fraudulent use of temporary visas to gain entry to the US, and then the enabling of such abuse by the government in forgiving it. It invites the abuse of the laws, and is an insult to those who immigarte honestly and honorably. [/QUOTE] The rest of my family, who got in legally, did not see as an insult how I got in, so shove it **cerverus**. I have mentioned before that I agree that if the authorities get you, the law has to be followed. Those are the breaks for any being here illegally, and the law must be followed, but cooler heads already realize changes are coming, once the laws are changed your points are moot, right now you have the support of the law, but since funding is not there to enforce the draconian measures the extreme right demands, it will remain a pipe dream, other plans need to be considered. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/132 "2006-04-25T03:34:42Z")
[QUOTE=cerberus] My initial link to Gaffney was solely to get a link to the constitutional issues. The point of raising the issues is to highlight the utter hypocrisy in having the Mexicans who are here illegally protesting for rights that foreignors do not have in Mexico. [/QUOTE] But when your cite is incorrect, or even leaving out complete statements that contradict what he wants you to infer, it’s not really a good cite. That’s why I called you on it. His leaving out important sentences would be like me saying that the Bill of Rights states “Congress shall make no law”. It does say that, but I left out important additional words which change the meaning. > [@](#): > > I have no interest in turning this into Gaffney’s politics. Then don’t use him as a cite. It’s not like the Constitution of Mexico is a private memo that only Gaffney has access to. > [@](#): > > My additional cites are drawn from your links to the English language version of the Mexican Constitution. Your additional cites have absolutely no bearing on what I was questioning. Once again, and this seems to need repeating, I have many problems with the constitution of Mexico. I just also have problems with people making shit up to drive their point home, which Gaffney does. Since you do keep bringing up the same crap over and over again, let it be known that our deportation laws aren’t a lot different from those of Mexico. Ask Mary Anne Gehris about it sometime. You also mentioned that in Mexico naturalized citizens may be stripped of citizenship easier than native borns. They are also more easily stripped of their citizenship than native born citizens here. Feel free to look into the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or just ask some of the people it has affected already. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/133 "2006-04-25T05:16:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The rest of my family, who got in legally, did not see as an insult how I got in, so shove it cerverus. > > I have mentioned before that I agree that if the authorities get you, the law has to be followed. Those are the breaks for any being here illegally, and the law must be followed, but cooler heads already realize changes are coming, once the laws are changed your points are moot, right now you have the support of the law, but since funding is not there to enforce the draconian measures the extreme right demands, it will remain a pipe dream, other plans need to be considered. The user name is **cerberus** , and your family is not the end all and be all of the process, Gigo. Shove it right back, bucko. I’m not thinking of the families that are fine with bending the rules when it suits them. I’m thinking of the immigrants who don’t have the advantage of a close border with the US, or who have the ethics to do it legally. DMC: My quotes aren’t relevant? The fact that the immigrant protests that occured peacefully in the US would have been barred in Mexico, the fact that there is a permanent underclass of naturalized cicitzens in Mexico? The fact that Mexico can eject foreigners with no due process whatsoever? The fact that naturalized Mexican citizens can’t serve in the federal government? The fact that the Mexican government wouldn’t for a fucking picosecond tolerate the abuses that we tolerate? The fact that Mexico actively restricts or forbids the ownership of certain lands by foreigners? That the only way ownership by foreignors can own land in Mexico is if they meet a set of restrictions apparently not imposed on native citizens? Not relevant? The fact that Mexico and the Mexicans want a special status of immigration that no other nation on Earth enjoys with the US? Tell me this: In the US, a foreigner can own land, can own a house. Countless immigrants own houses in the US, with no legal restrictions. A resident alien in the US can serve in the US military, and such service advances their naturalization, and in fact then they can serve as officers. A naturalized citizen of the US can serve in the US Congress, can serve in the Electoral College, can serve in the State governments, can serve in the Supreme Court. The only restriction is in the offices leading to the federal Presidency. A naturalized citizen of Mexico can’t even captain a fucking boat flagged by Mexico. A naturalized citizen of Mexico can’t even serve in the military. This reflects a fundamentally different view of immigrants and citizenship by the Mexican government. When Mexico approaches reciprocity on immigration matters with the US, and when their laws begin to reflect a common view of immigration and naturalization, then we can talk. Untill then, piss off. Respect our fucking borders and laws. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/134 "2006-04-25T05:28:27Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] The rest of my family, who got in legally, did not see as an insult how I got in, so shove it **cerverus**. [/QUOTE] Of what possible relevance is this to the discussion? Your family loves you. Good for you. Do you think their love for you has any bearing on how the government will or should treat you if you’re caught driving under the influence or assault a police officer or rob a bank or commit any other crime? [QUOTE=GIGObuster] I have mentioned before that I agree that if the authorities get you, the law has to be followed. Those are the breaks for any being here illegally, and the law must be followed, but cooler heads already realize changes are coming, once the laws are changed your points are moot, right now you have the support of the law, but since funding is not there to enforce the draconian measures the extreme right demands, it will remain a pipe dream, other plans need to be considered. [/QUOTE] I agree with this, with a slightly different bent, I’d venture. No, I dooubt that the nation will round everyone up and ship them back. They should, but they won’t. And more than it is an issue of money, it is an issue of will. That is why we need to enforce laws that are on the books, and develop new ones. We need a comprehensive plan that encourages illegals to leave on their own. The less attractive we make it here, the better. Close our schools to illegals. Pick a date, say Jan. 1, and that’s it. That should give parents time to make arrangements. If not, that’s the parent’s problem. Provide only emergency medical care. And when they do come into the arms of the system, deport them immediately. We need to go after employers, drying up the demand. They need substantial fines and serious jail time where warranted. And we need to completelely secure our border. Whatever it takes. The only people coming in here from now on should be doing so legally. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/135 "2006-04-25T05:45:34Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Of what possible relevance is this to the discussion? [/quote] You should ask \*\*cerberus \*\* for thinking he also could talk about what is insulting to other inmigrants. > [@](#): > > I agree with this, with a slightly different bent, I’d venture. No, I dooubt that the nation will round everyone up and ship them back. They should, but they won’t. And more than it is an issue of money, it is an issue of will. That is why we need to enforce laws that are on the books, and develop new ones. We need a comprehensive plan that encourages illegals to leave on their own. The less attractive we make it here, the better. Close our schools to illegals. Pick a date, say Jan. 1, and that’s it. That should give parents time to make arrangements. If not, that’s the parent’s problem. Provide only emergency medical care. And when they do come into the arms of the system, deport them immediately. We need to go after employers, drying up the demand. They need substantial fines and serious jail time where warranted. And we need to completelely secure our border. Whatever it takes. The only people coming in here from now on should be doing so legally. And this is relevant to the OP how? Remember that I agree with the OP in that your solutions, though similar to the ones proposed by the house, have very little chance to be approved by the senate and the president. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/136 "2006-04-25T05:52:50Z")
[QUOTE=cerberus] The user name is **cerberus** , and your family is not the end all and be all of the process, Gigo. [/quote] I did not say they were but you assumed all other immigrants would be, as I’m a legal one now, I can not sincerely be insulted that others are **fighting to legalize their stay** , as the proposals from the Senate will make them pay for their transgression, it will not be an amnesty like I had. > [@](#): > > Shove it right back, bucko. Very little came back, most of the bile and shit remained in you. > [@](#): > > I’m not thinking of the families that are fine with bending the rules when it suits them. I’m thinking of the immigrants who don’t have the advantage of a close border with the US, or who have the ethics to do it legally. We came from Central America you numbnuts. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/137 "2006-04-25T05:53:56Z")
[QUOTE=cerberus] A resident alien in the US can serve in the US military, and such service advances their naturalization, and in fact then they can serve as officers. [/QUOTE] Last I heard, resident aliens could serve as Enlisted, not as Warrant or Commissioned Officers nor even at the paygrade of E9. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/138 "2006-04-25T06:00:01Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] You should ask \*\*cerberus \*\* for thinking he also could talk about what is insulting to other inmigrants. [/QUOTE] Can you rephrase this? I can’t make out your meaning. Seriously. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/139 "2006-04-25T06:18:24Z")
[QUOTE=cerberus] DMC: My quotes aren’t relevant? [/QUOTE] That’s correct. They weren’t relevant to the questions I raised regarding your cite. The ones you still haven’t actually responded to, other than throwing up other unrelated links that do nothing to address the issues I had with your original post. Once again, and it seems to bear repeating over and over again, **I have major problems with the Constitution of Mexico and only a frothing at the mouth idiot wouldn’t have realized that by this point** , but that has nothing to do with the fact that your cite contained outright lies, incomplete statements which alter the original meaning, etc. Even ignoring the fact that you’ve not shown a willingness to actually address anything that has been brought up, you should probably take the time to find out what Mexico does that the United States doesn’t do when you want to talk about how much worse they are than us. Things like citizen’s arrest, second class status for naturalized citizens, etc., aren’t foreign to us, as I noted above. Also, Mexico has easily gotten around some (but definitely not all) of the problems it has with its constitution, including the one that all of the Tanton-headed bigots scream about, the inability to own land near the coast. Foreigners are allowed to buy, sell, develop, tear down, or anything else that you can do with land here in America, with one minor difference. The land is held in trust. It’s still your’s to do as you’d like, but it remains in the bank’s name. The bank has no rights to it, and you have all rights to it, so it’s not really any different from ownership. Look up “fideicomisos” if you want to learn more (who am I kidding?). If you want to continue to throw out things you don’t like about the Constitution, you’ll continue to get it drilled into your head that I don’t like everything about it either. If you actually address the points I raised, or admit that they were out of context, completely fabricated, or have long since been deprecated, then we can talk. Until then, piss off. Respect my fucking time and intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510/140 "2006-04-25T06:26:37Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Damage is done to property and what is the homeoner to do? Call the cops right? But what if you’re calling them every week or every day. And they continue to come after the damage is done/ The offenders are long goneor , if they are caught, there is no remedy monetarily. So after months of this, aren’t you allowed to protect your property with a firearm. Now this just leads to a guaranteed ugly situation. OUr society says call the cops. But the cops can’t patrol around everyones property 24/7. The answer is a completely secure border. Whether it takes a wall, a fence, or both and a moat, with constant electronic surveillance, we must do it. At the same time we should be enforcing our current laws against both illegal workers and the people who hire them. [/QUOTE] What if we just built a really tall, really thick wall around your place? Wouldn’t that have the same effect? I’m perfectly happy with some of my tax dollars going to that piece of pork. You keep using these same silly analogies, but they just don’t apply. You might want a wall that makes the old Berlin wall look like a stroll in the park, but it’s not anymore your place than it is mine. I don’t want the stupid wall built around my place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-hell-with-the-house/351510.md?page=8)