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.
cerberus is as cerberus does.
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.
We are in fact considering that. She has an offer from the airport in DF, and will eventally inherent land.
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 is the English translation of the constitution as of 2002.
Cite? Here, let me help you with that one.
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:
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:
Got any more fun cites?
Cites?
Naturalized citizens cannot serve in the federal legislature:
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.
Naturalized citizens may be stripped of citizenship more easily than native citizens.
Only citizens may protest:
Restrictions on ownership of land by non-citizens:
More fun cites:
Naturalized citizens as second-class citizens: In service and in employment:
There was nothing illegal in what I did to marry her. I never “abetted” her in any crime. That’s my OP.
Nor did I say they could, nor did I question the veracity of that statement.
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.
I don’t remember asking for this cite either.
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.
In this case, the illegal had a visa and overstayed.
As in this case, the illegal overstayed a visa.
In these cases, we have an abuse of an initially legal entry.
In this case, initial entry was not legal, and no clear remedy is available (nor should it be…).
In this case, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You should ask **cerberus ** for thinking he also could talk about what is insulting to other inmigrants.
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.
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.
Very little came back, most of the bile and shit remained in you.
We came from Central America you numbnuts.
Last I heard, resident aliens could serve as Enlisted, not as Warrant or Commissioned Officers nor even at the paygrade of E9.
Can you rephrase this? I can’t make out your meaning. Seriously.
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.
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.