Article first published as Immigration: Mexico Cannot See The Man In The Mirror on Blogcritics
In an article by Michelle Malkin titled "How Mexico Treats Its Illegal Aliens", I found a well layed out argument showing the contrast between Mexico's immigrations provisions and SB 1070 in Arizona. Upon completion of my reading, I felt compelled to offer my opinion in which I used the information obtained by Ms. Malkin.
Reality: Mexico is making demands on the United States that it will not concede to its Southern neighbor: Central America. Just as immigrants cross the U.S. - Mexico border there are immigrants from Cuba and Central America crossing Mexico’s Southern border into Mexico. Does Mexico treat their illegal immigrants the same way that they demand Arizona and the United States treat their illegal immigrants?
Of course not. In fact, Mexico’s immigration laws and policies are far stricter than any imposed in the United States.
If a person crosses Mexico’s Southern border illegally into their country and are detained, by law, "illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. . . Document fraud and alien marriage fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country."
If a person crosses the United States’ Southern border into our country in the State of Arizona the punishment that they can expect to receive is no where near what Mexico hands out. First, the immigrant has to have been “found out” and by law this will be when an officer of the law is suspicious of their citizenship status while executing his duties for a crime. If the officer becomes highly suspicious of a person being in the country illegally, he can request documents of proof from that person. At this point the new law requires the law enforcement officer to check with U.S. Immigrations or another federal agency to confirm and detain the person if they are in the country illegally.
Some type of civil offense has to have taken place before an officer even approaches an individual about their immigration status in Arizona. This is not the case in Mexico, just suspicion of a person, mostly foreigners, citizenship is all the Mexican authorities needs to detain and question a person.
It is a national mandate that all law enforcement, local, state, and federal are required to enforce Mexico’s immigration laws. Not only is the military required to assist, a civilian/citizen can make an arrest. No where in the United States is a citizen authorized to arrest someone that they think is here illegally.
Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks every tourist and foreign traveler at all times. Their have a National Registry that tracks and verifies the identity of all mexican citizens, they must carry identification card, just as Americans are required to do in the form of an identification card or driver license. If someone is unable to produce this they can be arrested as an illegal alien.
In Arizona the difference is that there is no registry listing every non-citizen within its borders. That is not a state responsibility, but falls on the United States government to maintain and enforce. At state level the ability to check ones citizenry in support of the 14th Amendment by local and state law enforcement or even businesses is all ready a requirement by the federal government. Whenever you are approached by the police they will ask to see identification, if you are in a vehicle he wants to see your driver license, and when you are being hired by a business you are given paperwork that specifically ask for proof of citizenry.
The provisions of Mexico’s Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) lay out the above and there’s been no public outcry for immigration reform, because it is illegal for any non-citizen to express such in public gatherings. Is this not what the Mexican government doing here by registering complaint with the President and joining in on the lawsuits against Arizona’s new immigration law?
They do not allow any noncitizen to participate in or be involved with the political affairs of the country. There are a lot of Mexican statutes that limits the participation of foreigners in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. This is especially true when it comes to both private property and your rights at your place of employment.
If an individual applies for citizenship with the Mexican Consulate they:
-- must not upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.”
– must enhance the country’s “economic or national interests”
-- “not found to be physically or mentally unhealthy,”
-- show no “contempt against national sovereignty or security.”
-- must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories…
-- "must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care".
If we applied this to the immigrants that enter this country illegally or apply to become an American citizen, would it ease the tensions that have been brewing ever since SB 1070 was introduced? Perhaps not, but by presenting this argument to those that has a need to know just might make Mexico sit back and do as they say, and not as they please.
Showing posts with label federal government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal government. Show all posts
Friday, July 23, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Federal Government Issues Quiet Warning To States
Article first published as Is DOJ Immigration Lawsuit a Warning to the States on Blogcritics.
When the Justice Department (DOJ) filed its lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law was it a warning to other states thinking about implementing similar laws, that immigration is their venue, and not the states? That matter of nationality is also a federal responsibility?
With the number of lawsuits filed with the federal courts, the DOJ did not need to file a suit of their own. The law opponents may think that by the government suing Arizona adds strength to their cause just because they are the federal government, which may be true, but there was really no need to sue for the same things that are all ready headed to federal court to be decided on.
The government in their claim says they do not want the states to come up with their own solution to immigration issues, and that immigration and nationally laws and policy are in their purview and is not delegated to the states. That federal law takes precedence is these matters. Getting an injunction to prevent Arizona’s immigration law from going into effect on July 29, 2010 would be considered a victory. This alone would say that there is a reasonable doubt as to how far a state can involve itself in federal matters or change precedence.
By consensus, the majority of the nation is behind Arizona and applauds their actions since there is no real federal law enforcement taking place. The Arizona law authorizes law enforcement officers in the course of performing their normal duties to question suspects about their citizenry if there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. The law also targets employers who knowingly employ illegals and seek out illegals to perform work for them.
It is the belief of the law’s opponents that this law is just a legal route to racial profiling and violation of civil rights because the majority of illegals in the nation are of Hispanic descent. The law’s wording does not specify any one group of people falls under this statute, just illegals, which cover all illegals no matter their race, creed, religion or nationality.
Prior to proposing any legislation regarding immigration, those states that are considering imposing laws similar to Arizona’s should wait and observe how this pans out. If the decision is in Arizona’s favor, seeing how they go about implementing it, how it takes shape and how it helps the problem would be the best course for other states to follow before implementing one of its own. The question of economics also should be taken into consideration since such laws normally bring constitutional challenges in court by organizations that advocate for civil rights, and in this case, boycotts could be very harmful.
If this is indeed a warning from the federal government to the states thinking about implementing laws similar to Arizona’s, the United States government, Obama and his crew, need to come up with a workable plan to protect our borders instead of just accepting responsibility for its failure to do so.
When the Justice Department (DOJ) filed its lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law was it a warning to other states thinking about implementing similar laws, that immigration is their venue, and not the states? That matter of nationality is also a federal responsibility?
With the number of lawsuits filed with the federal courts, the DOJ did not need to file a suit of their own. The law opponents may think that by the government suing Arizona adds strength to their cause just because they are the federal government, which may be true, but there was really no need to sue for the same things that are all ready headed to federal court to be decided on.
The government in their claim says they do not want the states to come up with their own solution to immigration issues, and that immigration and nationally laws and policy are in their purview and is not delegated to the states. That federal law takes precedence is these matters. Getting an injunction to prevent Arizona’s immigration law from going into effect on July 29, 2010 would be considered a victory. This alone would say that there is a reasonable doubt as to how far a state can involve itself in federal matters or change precedence.
By consensus, the majority of the nation is behind Arizona and applauds their actions since there is no real federal law enforcement taking place. The Arizona law authorizes law enforcement officers in the course of performing their normal duties to question suspects about their citizenry if there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. The law also targets employers who knowingly employ illegals and seek out illegals to perform work for them.
It is the belief of the law’s opponents that this law is just a legal route to racial profiling and violation of civil rights because the majority of illegals in the nation are of Hispanic descent. The law’s wording does not specify any one group of people falls under this statute, just illegals, which cover all illegals no matter their race, creed, religion or nationality.
Prior to proposing any legislation regarding immigration, those states that are considering imposing laws similar to Arizona’s should wait and observe how this pans out. If the decision is in Arizona’s favor, seeing how they go about implementing it, how it takes shape and how it helps the problem would be the best course for other states to follow before implementing one of its own. The question of economics also should be taken into consideration since such laws normally bring constitutional challenges in court by organizations that advocate for civil rights, and in this case, boycotts could be very harmful.
If this is indeed a warning from the federal government to the states thinking about implementing laws similar to Arizona’s, the United States government, Obama and his crew, need to come up with a workable plan to protect our borders instead of just accepting responsibility for its failure to do so.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Another Arkansas County Considers Ordinances Banning Of K2 (Spice)
Sebastian County in Arkansas is the latest in the state to consider banning the purchase, possession and sale of K2. K2, currently,is a legal substance sold in various stores and by retailers nationwide. The substance is packaged and marketed as an incense and labeled not for human consumption, and gives its users a marijuana-like high when it is smoked.
Unlike marijuana and other drugs, there is no known method of detection to identify its use in individuals. The long term effects are unknown, but is potentially dangerous to those that use it. If the ordinance is passed, punishment will be the same as other counties, municipalities and states that have outlawed K2. Violation will be a misdemeanor, and upon conviction will carry a fine up to $1000, and/or confinement up to one year. Law enforcement officials and legislators have indicated that banning K2 within the state will be under consideration in its January session.
As of date, there has been one incident in their neighboring county in Oklahoma where a driver involved in an automobile accident was alleged to have been under K2's influence.
At the current rate waves of ordinances are going in place to control K2, the federal government will have to pursue banning K2 and Spice on the national level. However, in the meantime local and state officials are taking action to protect their citizens.
Unlike marijuana and other drugs, there is no known method of detection to identify its use in individuals. The long term effects are unknown, but is potentially dangerous to those that use it. If the ordinance is passed, punishment will be the same as other counties, municipalities and states that have outlawed K2. Violation will be a misdemeanor, and upon conviction will carry a fine up to $1000, and/or confinement up to one year. Law enforcement officials and legislators have indicated that banning K2 within the state will be under consideration in its January session.
As of date, there has been one incident in their neighboring county in Oklahoma where a driver involved in an automobile accident was alleged to have been under K2's influence.
At the current rate waves of ordinances are going in place to control K2, the federal government will have to pursue banning K2 and Spice on the national level. However, in the meantime local and state officials are taking action to protect their citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
