LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Standardized NAFTA-member immigration laws?

Should the U.S. use Mexico's law as a template for immigration?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 83.3%

  • No

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • Keep the border open but only one direction

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Close the border and throw criminal illegals out.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    6
K

Karen Kraft

29
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
36,253
Perhaps, since the chief of state and head of government, President Felipe de Jesus CALDERON Hinojosa, of the United Mexican States (“Mexico”) doesn’t consider the Arizona law to be anything more than an horrific violation of human rights, perhaps the Member States of NAFTA (Canada, U.S.A., and Mexico) should adopt a uniform immigration law, using President Calderon’s country’s law as a useful template. Since it is obvious that he doesn’t think that Mexico’s immigration law is unjust or in violation of human rights, perhaps Canada and the U.S.A. should consider adopting Mexico’s approach. Here is a link to consider:

Link to Mexico’s general population law (immigration features, etc.)
http://translate.google.com/transla...neral+de+Poblacion&num=20&hl=en&safe=off&sa=G
 
Arizona wants to kick out illegal immigrants out of Arizona legally.


What the fuck you Mexicans don't understand?
 
Songcatcher said:
Arizona wants to kick out illegal immigrants out of Arizona legally.


What the fuck you Mexicans don't understand?
Click to expand...

Well, see.....

It goes something like this: There was a time when the U.S. economy was growing and growing, under various administrations after WWII and Mexico was struggling with a quasi-socialist regime (The Party of the Institutional Revolution - PRI) and had fallen on particularly hard times. While it was thought that nationalizing the oil industry, to form PEMEX, a state-run purveyor of oil, gasoline, etc., might pull Mexico out of its economic problems. Unfortunately, due to systemic corruption, the common folks in Mexico saw the opposite happen: Mexico went further and further into general economic distress despite the huge oil reserves off her eastern seaboard. Then, a right-center quasi-technocratic government finally ouster the PRI and installed a relatively honest central government which has yet to rid her states and cities from all corruption. It should be noted that the U.S. has yet to rid herself of similar but less endemic corruption at all levels as well. That said, Mexico was progressing rather nicely until the drug cartels amassed too much money and too much power for the states and cities to control. The unpublished agreement between all U.S. governments after WWII and all Mexican governments was simple: You (the U.S.) need cheap labor; we (Mexico) need to drain off workers to try to keep our unemployment problem somewhat in check. Cesar Chavez' United Farm Workers (UFW-Teamsters) ended the Bracero Program (started in 1942) formally in 1964 when it was discovered that legal aliens were taking jobs from qualified American workers and said Mexican workers were being exploited by grape, lettuce, and other harvested food crop producers who were barely paying a living wage to these folks. There were grape boycotts and lettuce boycotts to stop non-union workers from working these fields. During the Bracero years, there was only a tiny "illegal immigration" problem, since people who wished to come to America to work the fields were given "guest worker" documentation, good for one year, and renewable upon a showing of proper [U.S.] taxes payments (usually done by the growers through a special withholding revenue feature).

With no adequate guest-worker program in place, employers nevertheless wanted to avail themselves of cheap Mexican non-union labor and would provide jobs to anybody who showed up to work (Mexican, American, Mexican-American, Asian, etc.). Here is should be noted that some members of the local government in San Francisco dislike the Arizona-law-type approach because they are afraid it might lean to racial profiling against Asians...

Anyway, this is why, since WWII, no U.S. government effort to impose real sanctions on employers nor secure the U.S.-Mexican border has ever taken place. Over the years, however, and more recently to a much greater degree, the influx of Mexican workers has taken on a different character. Many of the people slipping into Arizona are looking for work in Phoenix's hospitality industry (tourist hotels, motels, restaurants, etc.) but with them come a lot of drug smugglers and gun-runners who are involved in a drug war with the Mexican Army. They come into the U.S. to deliver drugs, take their money, and avoid the Mexican Army's attempts to shut them down.

That's where we now stand.
 
Karen Kraft said:
Well, see.....

It goes something like this: There was a time when the U.S. economy was growing and growing, under various administrations after WWII and Mexico was struggling with a quasi-socialist regime (The Party of the Institutional Revolution - PRI) and had fallen on particularly hard times. While it was thought that nationalizing the oil industry, to form PEMEX, a state-run purveyor of oil, gasoline, etc., might pull Mexico out of its economic problems. Unfortunately, due to systemic corruption, the common folks in Mexico saw the opposite happen: Mexico went further and further into general economic distress despite the huge oil reserves off her eastern seaboard. Then, a right-center quasi-technocratic government finally ouster the PRI and installed a relatively honest central government which has yet to rid her states and cities from all corruption. It should be noted that the U.S. has yet to rid herself of similar but less endemic corruption at all levels as well. That said, Mexico was progressing rather nicely until the drug cartels amassed too much money and too much power for the states and cities to control. The unpublished agreement between all U.S. governments after WWII and all Mexican governments was simple: You (the U.S.) need cheap labor; we (Mexico) need to drain off workers to try to keep our unemployment problem somewhat in check. Cesar Chavez' United Farm Workers (UFW-Teamsters) ended the Bracero Program (started in 1942) formally in 1964 when it was discovered that legal aliens were taking jobs from qualified American workers and said Mexican workers were being exploited by grape, lettuce, and other harvested food crop producers who were barely paying a living wage to these folks. There were grape boycotts and lettuce boycotts to stop non-union workers from working these fields. During the Bracero years, there was only a tiny "illegal immigration" problem, since people who wished to come to America to work the fields were given "guest worker" documentation, good for one year, and renewable upon a showing of proper [U.S.] taxes payments (usually done by the growers through a special withholding revenue feature).

With no adequate guest-worker program in place, employers nevertheless wanted to avail themselves of cheap Mexican non-union labor and would provide jobs to anybody who showed up to work (Mexican, American, Mexican-American, Asian, etc.). Here is should be noted that some members of the local government in San Francisco dislike the Arizona-law-type approach because they are afraid it might lean to racial profiling against Asians...

Anyway, this is why, since WWII, no U.S. government effort to impose real sanctions on employers nor secure the U.S.-Mexican border has ever taken place. Over the years, however, and more recently to a much greater degree, the influx of Mexican workers has taken on a different character. Many of the people slipping into Arizona are looking for work in Phoenix's hospitality industry (tourist hotels, motels, restaurants, etc.) but with them come a lot of drug smugglers and gun-runners who are involved in a drug war with the Mexican Army. They come into the U.S. to deliver drugs, take their money, and avoid the Mexican Army's attempts to shut them down.

That's where we now stand.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyW23i-X8bs
 
Actually, our Canadian regulations have tightened over the last few years when it comes to immigration na d even cross border visitations.. the use of passports is required even if we're just popping across the border to get cheaper cigarettes..and Americans need to use updated travellers ID ( dont know what its called) to cross up north
 
Songcatcher said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyW23i-X8bs
Click to expand...

It should be noted at this point that the campaign against the Bracero program was based on racist rhetoric: When California Senator George Murphy ( http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m001092 ) suggested that, since Mexico had a lot of people who wanted to pick crops and California growers had a lot of crops to pick, the Left in America immediately played the race card. A humorous example:

Should Americans pick crops?
George says no;
'Cause no one but a Mexican would stoop so low.
And after all, even in Egypt, the Pharaohs
Had to import—Hebrew Braceros.
(c) Tom Lehrer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rSNQlsR5Pc
 
We might want to adopt their legal immigrant restrictions as well.

Ishmael
 
badbabysitter said:
Actually, our Canadian regulations have tightened over the last few years when it comes to immigration na d even cross border visitations.. the use of passports is required even if we're just popping across the border to get cheaper cigarettes..and Americans need to use updated travellers ID ( dont know what its called) to cross up north
Click to expand...
That's more because of security issues than immigration.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say.
 
You enter Mexico without papers *you must show your papers there* it is a felony and you can get 2 years in prison. You get caught a second time it is ten year in prison. We should adopt their law.
 
The US should adopt Burma's laws of immigration.

Yes, I know Burma changed names......:)
 
if you are here illegally, you should have no rights, and should be sent back a.s.a.p

I do however think that illegals who have been here for years and have sons and daughters born here should have the right to stay with them legally.
ok I am Canadian but think it should apply in both our Countrys.
 
retd said:
if you are here illegally, you should have no rights, and should be sent back a.s.a.p

I do however think that illegals who have been here for years and have sons and daughters born here should have the right to stay with them legally.
ok I am Canadian but think it should apply in both our Countrys.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with that notion. Back in the 80's we extended amnesty to 5 million illegals. The deal was that this was a 'one time' affair and that we would vigorously monitor the border. The fact was that they got the amnesty and the border was never fully monitored. Now we have 20 million +/- here and one political party wants to extend amnesty again. Fine. The public is of the attitude that we've already been fooled once, so this time you have to deal with the border first. The public is of the notion that without dealing with the border the next time the issue comes up we'll be dealing with 100 million illegals.

The democrats don't want to deal with the border and that is the impass today.

Ishmael
 
koalabear said:
You enter Mexico without papers *you must show your papers there* it is a felony and you can get 2 years in prison. You get caught a second time it is ten year in prison. We should adopt their law.
Click to expand...

That is precisely the question posed by this thread: whether we should adopt the less offensive Mexican system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top