Monday, November 19, 2007

Illegal Immigration Mexican Style

I think everyone knows my position on illegal immigration. In case you don’t, let me enlighten you. Illegal immigrants should be removed immediately from the US, but before they're deported, immigration officials should do an oral DNA swipe. Illegals should be notified in Spanish, both verbally and in writing, that their DNA will be stored in the government’s national database. If they’re caught a second time, they will go to jail, and then deported. Employers will be heavily fined the first time; fined and jailed the second time. No exceptions. Illegal aliens should not be entitled to any taxpayer based service, even if they’re “paying” into the system using a false or stolen SSN. If they want come here, that’s great; just do it on a green card. On a related topic, we speak English here. Learn it. Use it. Or leave.

Mexico’s former President, Vincente Fox, has repeatedly said the United States had “no right” to secure its border. America was acting “medieval” and “inhumanely” by proposing a fence along the border, while at the same time encouraging Mexicans to sneak into the country. Some Hispanic groups have openly proposed a program of “reconquista” or reconquest to create a so called “Republic of North” comprising of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, and Colorado through various political groups like “La Raza” and the Aztlan Movement. With over 80% of Americans demanding a secured southern border, the federal government continues to do nothing. Why? Under NAFTA, Mexican drivers will be allowed unimpeded access to US highways in vehicles of questionable safety. Why? Is this why some politicians want to issue illegals a driver’s license? Sure would make access to and from Mexico easy. Very little federal effort or money has in fact been put into place to secure our border with Mexico. The burden has fallen largely on poorly equipped, staffed, and funded local police officers along key border areas. Even our US border patrol and few military personnel stationed along key crossing sites aren’t allowed to engage illegals. They can only “observe, withdraw, and report”. Again, why?

A friend of mine recently sent me the article below, which was written by Dr. J. Michael Waller, a professor at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC. Dr. Waller directs graduate students in political warfare and political diplomacy. He is also Vice President of Information Operations at the Center of Security Policy, a US policy advisor, and an author. Dr. Waller wrote this article in May of 2006. In it, he describes how Mexico deals with its illegal immigration issue. I hope you find the article as enlightening as I did. So let's see how President Fox’s liberal suggestions play out when they apply it toward their illegal immigrant problem.

Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home Monday, May 08, 2006
By J. Michael Waller

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;
• have the means to sustain themselves economically;
• not destined to be burdens on society;
• of economic and social benefit to society;
• of good character and have no criminal records; and
• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de PoblaciĆ³n, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

• Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
• Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
• Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
• The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
• A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
• A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
• Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
• Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
• Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
• "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
• Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
• Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
• A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics, and is Vice President for Information Operations at the Center for Security Policy. He wrote this paper for the Center for Security Policy.
An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation.

A Metro Louisville Department of Energy

It seems that oil and gas prices are always on our minds these days, especially with winter approaching, and Moderate Man is no exception. Take a look at what he has to say:

Why doesn’t Louisville Metro Government have a Department of Energy? It also needs a Green Building Ordinance. Lots of cities in America have these things. We don’t. Weather they call it Sustainable Design in Boston Massachusetts or a Green Building Ordinance in Frisco, TX., they all accomplish the same goals, to save energy. Our leaders need to be proactive. This is why our town is always behind the times. Government should be leading by example and showing the way to people. Yes, there are local scattered efforts to conserve energy from hybrid TARC buses, state building regulations, introduction of green roofs, etc. But new houses over 3500 square foot, should be energy self sustaining, like in Marin County, California. Louisville has been long known for its moderate housing costs. This has attracted residents and employers which help the local economy. Large houses need to be creatively built, by using the latest technology such as solar panels, passive solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc. By conserving energy costs they will not only save money themselves, but aide the local economy and keep energy costs down. Louisville Metro Government needs to replace their ageing police fleet with hybrid fuel vehicles and other departments with electric vehicles. They could phase them in over a period of years till there is total replacement. Methane gas from Louisville’s landfill could be reclaimed for winter heating gas and sold, instead of burned off. A few years ago Mayor Abramson made a failed push to convert the Meriwether Waste Reduction Station into garbage to steam power plant. Why did the mayor drop the ball and has not revisited his idea? The biggest asset Louisville has is the Ohio River. It needs to be exploited for energy needs. Louisville Metro officials could promote tax credits to have a firm build a small scale hydroelectric plant or an underwater turbine. Who knows, Metro Louisville could take a financial position like they do with local hotels or the arena, and maybe even compete with LG&E for energy costs. The Louisville Government could lead the way to have more biofuel service stations around the greater Louisville region. TARC buses should all be electric in the future. Perhaps one day a nuclear power plant like the many the French government has, will be built near here after their end use radioactive byproduct is recycled. This will eliminate the polluting coal power plants our state has and is known for.

Moderate Man

Seat Belts on School Buses

Some of you may remember a blog I wrote back on March 17, 2007 entitled “School Bus Safety” where I suggested adding seat belts on school buses. Evidently some folks were paying attention. US Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters is exploring the idea. You can read more at:


Jeff Noble said...


I probably shouldn't respond, as we are leagues apart of this matter. But we are friends and dissent is patriotic. I will add up front that I know I am well to the left of most everyone, including most liberals, on the subject of immigration. I take my stance on immigration directly from the Bible, words found in the 19th chapter of Leviticus, a favorite book of the conservatives. "When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." These thoughts are expanded by Jesus and his parable of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Saint Luke at 10:29. But, I digress.

After reading your first paragraph, I thought I'd simply write "well I disagree with every single sentence and sentiment in it," which is true and leave it at that.

Then I read the second paragraph with all the talk about the "reconquista." Frankly, I'm not quite sure I wouldn't support returning at least part of "Old" Mexico to Mexico, ridding ourselves of Texas in the process. You quote Vicente Fox as president, but he is and hasn't been for just under a year. The current president in Felipe Calderon who defeated Fox's hand-chosen successor. Like Fox, Calderon is against the Wall you support and I oppose.

Moving on, I've read in full the "Mexican Immigration Policy" you've included here. This commentary and others like it and supportive comments adjoining them have been making their way across conservative blogs for several months now. I do not dispute what you have included. But, I would also point out the part of the Mexican Immigration Policy which you and others have left out to some extent. It concerns how those entering should contribute to the overall welfare of the nation. You mention it in one line. But the policy is a far reaching one to assure that those who enter are put into useful jobs which add to the economy, jobs which otherwise would go unfulfilled. That is exactly what we do in America with many illegals. They fill jobs which otherwise go unfulfilled and add to the economy by making wages and then spending them. Arguments have been made in America, although none here, that Mexicans (and that's really the only foreigners most people are speaking of when discussing illegal immigration probably due in some part to the color of their skin) are working in America for the most part on jobs that no one else will take, in the horse industry, working tomato, soy, and tobacco crops, or in urban areas on roofs. If this weren't so, they wouldn't be there.

Mexico assimilates foreigners into areas where they are needed as part of their policy. This is something America doesn't do. We let people in then turn them out on their own to make their own way. Mexico's policy is much more civilized and logical.

But the single biggest difference in the two republics' policies may most likely be based on sheer numbers. Like the United States, Mexico's policy is aimed toward its neighbors to the south, where economies are worse and abuses are great. As for its northern neighbor, the Mexican policy is one of welcome. More Americans, 25% of those who live abroad, live in Mexico, more than in any other country in the world.

Obviously, like any national policy, there are plusses and minusses, and you have asked that America adopt those with which you agree. A full understanding of the full policy would probably find parts with which you would not agree.

Finally and fortunately, I came to Moderate Man's more moderate words and find his comments intriguing. Of course, the socialist-leaning part of me likes the idea of the city taking a financial stake in such projects. By extension, municipally owned utilities (water, gas, natural gas, hydroelectricity, etc.) which provide profits to the people (as a government) as opposed to profits to investors (at the public cost) is a good idea. In contrast to my response to your first paragraph, the one with which I disagreed with every sentence and sentiment, I find agreement on each of the ideas promoted by Moderate Man's green proposal. Of course, there would be an inordinate amount of up front costs, costs which currently have no home in the budget.

The answer to budget shortfalls in recent years, proposed and passed at all levels of government, has been to borrow (bond) and spend. The Republican control of Washington from 2001-2006 used the Borrow-and-Spend philosophy to finance its ill-conceived war and at the expense of every other part of government, resulting in infrastructure failures, debt rating decreases, and the resultant recession which we are unofficially headed into, not to mention our present debtor-nation status, owing more money to more countries than any other Republic on the planet, a status we've reached in seven short years.

State and local governments have also fallen prone to the Borrow-and-Spend mentality, taking from the Republican Handbook of Finance. Borrowing is not the best solution, although it is a solution, one which binds upon succeeding generations the failed economic policies and politics of their forefathers.

When will politicians, Democratic or Republican, admit that it is time to raise taxes - on everybody - time to pay the piper his due? How long must we travel down a road of alleged smaller and smaller government (alleged only, as it isn't smaller) financed by borrowing, loans to be paid once the current leadership is out of power, or more likely, out of time here on earth?

If we are to have government, whether of the small and unserving kind promoted and supported by Republicans or of the serving and innovative kind promoted and supported by the Democrats, in either instance, we must at some point pay for it. Presently, we are not.

Jeff Noble

Mark said...

Paul-Good Job-Silence Dogood

Another Opinion said...


Thank you for your comment. I appreciate open and honest discussion. It's the backbone of not only democracy, but friendship as well. I hope you'll feel free to post your comments-pro or con-anytime you'd like.

Another Opinion said...

I have to add that I like the idea of public ownership of utilities. For that matter, I like the idea of public ownership of natural resources of that affect national security such oil and gas. And I believe the development of alternatives energy sources such as solar and wind power is long overdue, as it our development of public mass transportation.

Ed Springston said...

I have to admit Paul I have agreed with the basis of your illegal immigration policy for a long time. In fact in many ways I have advocated much the same for years now. I, for one, have no problem with deporting illegals. I believe we should hold employers accountable with more than a minor fine and lip service.

Jeff, I must disagree that illegals are here doing the jobs no one else will. In fact most would do a lot of those jobs if they were paid fairly. The low wages from those employers are what keeps people from working those jobs. The horse industry is one in which we are all familiar and draws much compensation from our taxes. They cannot afford to pay better with the subsidies they receive on our backs? I think they can. Also, a lot of these jobs are in factories on factory floors that do pay a decent wage and yet citizens here cannot get these jobs because illegals have them. Check out some of the Riverport factories or even ask Catholic charities about their refugee program that displaces American workers who stand for their rights. It is worse than you can imagine in actuality.

Finally, it is time we think and work outside the box and traditional party politics in regards to some of moderate mans comments. Yes we can do better with green technology and yes we can do better with leadership. We cannot as long as we continue keeping idiots like Abramson in office though. We must move forward in our thought process and elect outside the traditional candidate or political lifer.

Also, on a sidenote though our housing may be desirable to people in California, for example, many folks here cannot even fathom affording the prices today on new housing. We are falling further and further behind in housing the people here for many reasons. Wages are one.

Keep up the good work Paul.

PAULH said...

Monday, March 27, 2006; Posted: 3:52 p.m. EST (20:52 GMT)

The following is one of my favorite thoughts on the issue of immigration. It's from President Theodore Roosevelt in a letter to the American Defense Society in 1919, 10 years after his presidency.
--Lou Dobbs

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

Another Opinion said...

Thanks for your comments Ed.

And thank you PaulH for sending the Lou Dobbs piece about Teddy Roosevelt--one of my favorite presidents!

APRIL said...


Another Opinion said...

Thank you April for your comment. Sadly, it's often the family of those who've committed illegal acts that suffers the most. They rarely think about what their actions will do to others. Of course, had he been an American trying to do the exact same thing in Mexico, he would be going to a federal prison rather than simply be deported.

Anonymous said...

I agree with your opinion. Mexicans should not be allowed here illegally. We dont let people from Europe and other countries come here without going through the legal processes. Another point to make is this. When our four fathers came to this land from Europe, they were so grateful to be here, they kissed the ground. They waited and waited to be able to come here legally. They went to war for our country, to make things better for the others.

Well, what have the mexicans every done for our country? Make buildings for cheap?? By letting them in illegally, thats putting what our ancestors did to shame. In studies, its shown that most of the mexicans that come here end up selling drugs and whatnot. I know they come here because of better healthcare and jobs. Why is that. BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY IS BETTER THAN THERES!

They should have to figure out there issues in there own country. ILLEGAL MEXICANS SHOULD BE DEPORTED!

Anonymous said...

Remember The Alamo!!!!!!