• Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!

Mexico's Immigration Law: We should try it in the US

gunslingingbird

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
I don't know if I would worry about getting it right. At the rate it’s going he’s not going to last that long when he is going to get virtually replaced by some drug lord. :1orglaugh

As it is, the guy who ran for president opposite Calderón, leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador, felt that he was cheated out of the presidency and decided to establish a "parallel government which would govern from the streets." There are many left-wing Mexicans that actually abide by López Obrador's laws, nevermind the fact that the official president is Calderón.

I'm surprised I didn't see any left-wing nutjobs in Berkeley or San Fagcisco do something similar after the 2 elections that Bush won. I mean, they whined and bitched about how he didn't win. Ok, fine, establish your own government and abide by its laws. What's that? Oh, right, I'm sorry. I forgot that all the ones that bitched and moaned wouldn't've cared if it was Bush or not, they weren't gonna be happy with whoever won the election. :hatsoff:
 

alfred packer

Why was my picture deleted?
I think for many reasons, including the political instability in Mexico, among other things, I doubt they have any where near the number of people interested in moving to Mexico, vs the United States or Canada.
 

No_Man

Would you hit it?
Just for some context... Our illegal immigration problem would be twice as bad if Mexico didn't have those laws. The only deterrent for all of South and Central America to start coming north by land is the fact that Mexico has a shoot-on-sight policy for its southern border. I've got friends who live down in Guatemala and they say the border crossing is like walking into a DMZ.
 

stampede2873

Junior Olympic Pole Vaulter
...border crossing is like walking into a DMZ.

I like that idea, I think we should make out border with Mexico like that!!!
 

calpoon

Yes, I bribed and cheated to get this far
That doesn't matter... Vincente Fox cannot cry for the US to have a more open border policy and then have such complete restrictions for his own country. You simply can't have it both ways.

why not? Since when is the US about setting laws based on what other countries are doing? pretty much most of our policies, and a good deal of the sentiments that I hear expressed even on this board say that we should not be doing that. If Mexico was to adopt looser border policies would you say that we should follow their example? I think not.

Countries want things done differently for their neighbors all the time, that's sorta what being a sovereign power is about, that you can make your own laws that are not the same as the ones that your neighbors have.

I always see all these funny example of- what would you call it?- some kind of perverse selflessness where it's expected for groups of people to do what is best for group A, instead of their own, but this philosophy is espoused by the members of group A, and they don't do the same thing in regards towards other people, they also just do what is best for them.

To explain that clearer- the US obligation is to do what is best for the nation. It's Mexico's obligation to do what is best for them. Mexico doesn't have any obligation to do what is best for the US, and why should they? The inverse is exactly the same, the Us doesn't set our policies because they benefit Mexico.

So I say that it is unreasonable for people to expect that Mexico should cater to the US, while the US doesn't cater to Mexico. Would that be considered going both ways, or just going one way (Our way or the highway)?
 

stampede2873

Junior Olympic Pole Vaulter
why not? Since when is the US about setting laws based on what other countries are doing? pretty much most of our policies, and a good deal of the sentiments that I hear expressed even on this board say that we should not be doing that. If Mexico was to adopt looser border policies would you say that we should follow their example? I think not.

Countries want things done differently for their neighbors all the time, that's sorta what being a sovereign power is about, that you can make your own laws that are not the same as the ones that your neighbors have.

I always see all these funny example of- what would you call it?- some kind of perverse selflessness where it's expected for groups of people to do what is best for group A, instead of their own, but this philosophy is espoused by the members of group A, and they don't do the same thing in regards towards other people, they also just do what is best for them.

To explain that clearer- the US obligation is to do what is best for the nation. It's Mexico's obligation to do what is best for them. Mexico doesn't have any obligation to do what is best for the US, and why should they? The inverse is exactly the same, the Us doesn't set our policies because they benefit Mexico.

So I say that it is unreasonable for people to expect that Mexico should cater to the US, while the US doesn't cater to Mexico. Would that be considered going both ways, or just going one way (Our way or the highway)?

The US is catering to Mexican Nationals that become Illegal Aliens when they cross our border. If this were more of a symbiotic relationship, then I would not be opposed, however this is not the case. The Illegal Border Jumpers are leeching the American Taxpayer. They refuse to even attempt to become Naturalized Citizens, yet they want all the benefits of American life.

I declare Bullshit!

From Fox to Calderon the cry and I mean crying from Mexico for the US to literally open it's borders when Mexicos is as strict as it is, is nothing more than duplicitous and an attempt to destroy the American southwest and America's infrastructure as a whole.

As well, the majority of Mexicans believe that the American southwest belongs to them, when it clearly does not. So they attempt to reclaim it by the border jumping.

Some who jump are just looking for a better life, some are drug runners, others are members of LaRaza. Regardless of the means, the end is they are a bain on American society and either must submit to naturalization or be deported.

America must strengthen it's border defense, and dare I say it? A shoot on sight policy.

But instead, what happens.... nothing, we have selfish assholes like Pelosi and Business owners that cater to the illegal for illegal votes and slave like labor, so they can maintain a cushy lifestyle while fucking over American taxpayers.
 

pikachar

Where was I yesterday?
wow and i was going to retire in Mexico... oh well there goes my idea of paradise, looks like I'll go to Colombia, or maybe Venezuela now
 

calpoon

Yes, I bribed and cheated to get this far
America must strengthen it's border defense, and dare I say it? A shoot on sight policy.

where is the logic there? If law enforcement agents aren't competent enough to do their job in the first place and catch illegal immigrants (which we all know that they aren't), we are going to trust them with to effectively and responsibly shoot first and ask questions later?

I don't know about you, but I don't really like the idea having to worry every time I leave the house that I'll end up staring down the barrel of a gun until I can prove that I am a legal resident. That is assuming that I even have the opportunity to offer proof in the first place before the trigger is pulled.
 

bodie54

If FreeOnes was a woman, I'd marry her!
As well, the majority of Mexicans believe that the American southwest belongs to them.

Zogby's a pretty dependable polling service, but they only polled 800 Mexicans in the poll I believe you're referring to. Still, it's definitley a disturbing mindset if it's accurate.

America must strengthen it's border defense, and dare I say it? A shoot on sight policy.

Obviously that would include shooting women and children....
Somehow I don't think you'd find many in law enforcement with the heart for that, though no doubt one could raise groups of vigilant, upstanding citizens who'd enthusiastically embrace the task :rolleyes:

Look, I completely agree the illegal problem is a huge one that needs to be productively addressed somehow; but shooting on sight doesn't qualify.
 
Top