[QUOTE=magellan01]
Can you rephrase this? I can’t make out your meaning. Seriously.
[/QUOTE]
:sigh: I was replying to his “It invites the abuse of the laws, and is an insult to those who immigarte honestly and honorably.” not all immigrants are insulted by it, I was replying to is sorry condescension.
…Read the whole quote. Once the person is naturalized, then they can be commissioned.
As for you, DMC, I have quoted back to you the relevant part of the constitution that you linked in.
Even if the clergy bit is retracted, we still have multiple and permanent restrictions on both foreign input on political issues and permanent restrictions on naturalized citizens that the US does not have.
Even if we redact every bit of the vitriol of the extremists, there is still a basic issue here about a double standard in the Mexican criticism of US immigration laws, and a basic problem with Fox lobbying the US for concessions that Mexico itself will not grant to the nations south of its’ border.
There is more than enough there to show the lack of symmetry and reciprocity between the US and Mexican views on Citizenship and Immigration, and enough to invalidate any complaints by Mexicans or their government about US laws.
Following the Mexican model of keeping foreigners out of Mexican political affairs, I’m wondering where exactly the foreign Mexican nationals get the idea that they actually have rights here?
I will agree that the US model is a bit excessive at this point, due to legislative imperative. However, said legislation is mutable and subject to challenge (unlike much of the Mexican restrictions, which are wired into the constitution). I suspect that time and more legislation, as well as judical oversight will bring balance in time.
I will also assert that US immigration laws are a matter of US imperative, and that US citizens have a reasonable expectation to expect the laws to be enforced, and to be able to control the flow of such laws.
In short, the citizens ( all of them, not just the immigration sympathizers) drive the process, and not the immigrants themselves.
[QUOTE=DMC]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Please tell me, what is wrong with wanting to keep people from entering our country illegally. Seriously. Let’s hear it. Leave those already here out of the equation for now. Make beleive they all have amnesty. Do you simply want completely open borders? If not, what type of controls would you suggest?
[QUOTE=DMC]
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.
[/QUOTE]
What analogy? This part of my post was describiing the actual situation of actual property owners on and near the actual border. Do those people not have a right to enjoy their property unmolested?
[QUOTE=cerberus]
Following the Mexican model of keeping foreigners out of Mexican political affairs, I’m wondering where exactly the foreign Mexican nationals get the idea that they actually have rights here?
[/QUOTE]
ding
You are ignoring that eventually those Mexican nationals will have to swear an oath to the USA and become Americans. If they don’t, I would not mind their expulsion.
Incidentally I do think all this talk of what the Mexicans do in their own country is a red herring. If I was Bush I would demand Fox to do changes, but as long the decider decides not to press on that, talking about what Mexico does remains indeed like a fish with a scarlett coloration.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Incidentally I do think all this talk of what the Mexicans do in their own country is a red herring. If I was Bush I would demand Fox to do changes, but as long the decider decides not to press on that, talking about what Mexico does remains indeed like a fish with a scarlett coloration.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. A country should set its immigration policy in a way that benefits it. Reciprocity between two countries would make sense, but it is by no means a mandate. What they do with other countries is their own business.
It is fun to shed light on Fox’s hypocricy, though.
Actually, no, when Fox is the big spokesman for foreign-lobbied “immigration reform”, and when the vast supermajority of those foreign flags at the initial protest rallies were … Mexican, no it is definitely not a red herring. When Mexican nationals are in the US , illegally, protesting for changes in US law, asserting rights normally linked to US citizenship, it is perfectly reasonable to look at the Mexican laws.
As for the rest…
You’re leaving out the first step: entering with permission. :rolleyes:
See, one of the things entailed by the oath is obeying the laws and all that. Having broken them in the first place … what’s the point?
A nation has the right to control its’ immigration laws. The nation drives the immigration policies, not the immigrants.
What would be “funny” is if the south-of-Mexico-illegals in Mexico were to attempt the same stunts as the illegals are attempting in the US.
That would be funny, having a consortium of Central and South American leaders lobbying Fox for Mexican immigration reform.
[QUOTE=cerberus]
You’re leaving out the first step: entering with permission. :rolleyes:
See, one of the things entailed by the oath is obeying the laws and all that. Having broken them in the first place … what’s the point?
[/quote]
Of course, laws were passed to finally legalize my stay, when I took the oath of citizenship I did it after my recidency was approved, no law was broken then. Your denial that we could do something similar when there has been a precedent is silly.
Now that would be news from an uncle that was indeed a Mexican, he came to the USA just before the Korean war and he enlisted in the army.
I’m not sure if he was already a legal resident but there was almost no fuss since he was a white Mexican, in any case he just got to Korea and he was lucky that the war ended almost as soon he was deployed there, I never understood why he did not become an American sooner, but seeing the problems residents were getting into, his efforts were a small part why laws were passed to give veterans like him also a chance to become Americans.
Just shy of his 80th year he was going to take the oath, it was going to be a big celebration for our family, but it was not meant to be. The oath was going to be in San Fransisco… on 9/11/2001, all big meets in public places were canceled for security reasons. Of course my uncle got his certificate of citizenship on the mail, like everybody else that was supposed to take the oath that day. I like to imagine that for the government, having been a good soldier was as good as the oath.
AFAIK my cousin who is currently in the NAVY is still a legal resident, but believe me, she is not fighting for EL Salvador. She is fighting for the country that is her new home.
[QUOTE=cerberus]
What would be “funny” is if the south-of-Mexico-illegals in Mexico were to attempt the same stunts as the illegals are attempting in the US.
That would be funny, having a consortium of Central and South American leaders lobbying Fox for Mexican immigration reform.
[/QUOTE]
Still a Crimson aquatic vertebrate.
I think the government should make all filial ties illegal. That would solve a lot of our problems.
My OP was more about ex post facto law. All of you who have your panties tied up in a twist should just calm down, because I agree with most of what you said. I am ranting–but who wouldn’t, in such a situation?
[QUOTE=Ethilrist]
I’m still trying to get my mind around the idea that all the taxes she owes on $9 an hour is $1. Every other job I’ve worked, if I earned $9, I’d be paying about $4.50…
[/QUOTE]
Well, it’s something like that. I’m not sure if those are the exact amounts. The point is that he has made it clear that he’s “deducting” money from her “total” pay. I think it’s so he won’t get into any kind of trouble in the future. Maybe he’s thinking of running for public office.