Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should The US Follow Mexico's Lead?  
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2579 times:

After all, they seem to really know how to treat their immigrants!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608703/posts

Quote:
In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:


- Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.

- Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.

- Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.

- Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.

- Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

****************************

Details in the link. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Time to fight fire with fire, as far as I'm concerned. Yet the illegals here claim that they're being treated as second-class citizens...incredible.

86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoeingfanyyz From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 991 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2572 times:

Interesting info. Methinks that the problem has not yet reached a climax where immediate and desperate actions must be taken. I think the US should play it out for a little and let someone with a bit more common sense than US Prez Bush tackle this issue, not problem.

Just my $0.02 (CDN)

Cheers,
Boeingfanyyz  airplane 



"If it aint boeing, it aint going!", "Friends are like condoms...they protect you when things get hard!"
User currently offlineKomododx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2545 times:

Quoting Slider (Thread starter):
Details in the link. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Well I'd agree on following Mexico regarding the illegal immigrants, but not the legal ones like myself.

Stefano  wave 


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8764 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2524 times:

I guess the following settles it, directly from http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm :

Quote:
Welcome to Free Republic!
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

Something tells me their take on the Mexican constitution might just be a little bit warped.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineFDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting Boeingfanyyz (Reply 1):
I think the US should play it out for a little and let someone with a bit more common sense than US Prez Bush tackle this issue, not problem.

Quiztime: Do you think GWB wants leniency or play hardball with the illegal immigration problem?



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Quoting Slider (Thread starter):
- Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.

Unconstitutional

Quoting Slider (Thread starter):
- Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.

Unconstitutional

Quoting Slider (Thread starter):
- Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.

Unconstitutional

Quoting Slider (Thread starter):
- Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

Unconstitutional, though it happens.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineFDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 5):
Unconstitutional, though it happens

Hmmm, you're uncharacteristically understanding on all these points. Oh wait, that's right, we're only talking about Mexico not the US.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8764 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 4):
Quiztime: Do you think GWB wants leniency or play hardball with the illegal immigration problem?

Leniency. His buddies need those extra dollars after all... wouldn't want to employ anyone you'd have to pay decent wages to.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 5):
Unconstitutional

Article 27 states,

"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)

Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."

"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."

Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."


Looks pretty well backed up to me. I admit I don't speak Spanish though.


User currently offlineFDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2486 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 7):
Leniency. His buddies need those extra dollars after all... wouldn't want to employ anyone you'd have to pay decent wages to.

Aloges; Correct! You win a cookie!

The GOP big boys want to sell out the middleclass for money. Not to be outdone, the Dems want to sell the middleclass out for a new constituency.

But reading many posts it seems both liberal, moderate and conservative Americans are getting the picture. We're ALL being sold out.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined exactly 15 years ago today! , 4318 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2482 times:

Wow, at this rate Americans will recite the Mexican Constitution better than their own!!  Wink


My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineFDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 10):
Wow, at this rate Americans will recite the Mexican Constitution better than their own!!

This is true. Vincente Fox is mandating to Bush just such a measure.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8764 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 9):
You win a cookie!

Thank you. Double chocolate crumble extra-cocoa full-sugar real-butter double-size, please. Big grin

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 9):
The GOP big boys want to sell out the middleclass for money. Not to be outdone, the Dems want to sell the middleclass out for a new constituency.

That's a little harsh on both sides, but basically I agree with you. "Leftist" parties have traditionally got more votes from lower-income voters than from the richer ones.

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 9):
We're ALL being sold out.

Well, still better off than people in sweatshops around the world ruining their health and lives for the sake of higher stock prices.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineFDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 12):
"Leftist" parties have traditionally got more votes from lower-income voters than from the richer ones

And the liberal Dems (such as Kennedy) are selling out our citizens on the lower rungs by flooding the country with those willing to undercut them.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8764 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2458 times:

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 13):
And the liberal Dems (such as Kennedy) are selling out our citizens on the lower rungs by flooding the country with those willing to undercut them.

Erm... the flooding itself is pretty much in Mexican hands, I assume? Anyway, with no party really doing anything (or knowing what to do) about illegal immigration, it's a bit out there to say the Democrats are allowing it to empoverish their own voters.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):

I was saying that those measures would be unconstitutional in the US, not in Mexico.

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 13):
And the liberal Dems (such as Kennedy) are selling out our citizens on the lower rungs by flooding the country with those willing to undercut them.

You say that as if there are Americans willing to do those jobs. There aren't.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineFDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
You say that as if there are Americans willing to do those jobs. There aren't.

Oh really? And what did Americans put on top of their hamburgers before the flood of illegals?



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2370 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 3):
Something tells me their take on the Mexican constitution might just be a little bit warped.

Once again, a swing and a miss when presented with FACTS.

Check it yourself...that is directly from the Mexican constitution. Just because you don't care for the messenger doesn't make the facts any less truthful...

Maybe we should have a history lesson on the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as well...


User currently offlineS12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2336 times:

Who wants to imigrate to Mexico??

Seems to me those rules are fun until we see mass border crossings as we see from Mexico to the US for instance.

But the question remains...Who would want to "imigrate" to Mexico?????


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2291 times:

Quoting S12PPL (Reply 18):
But the question remains...Who would want to "imigrate" to Mexico?????

Hondurans, Guatamalans, etc. Unless it's just a stop-over to the US. Mexico is definitely not a friendly harbor.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
I was saying that those measures would be unconstitutional in the US

That's two of us that understood that . . .

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 11):
Vincente Fox

Vicente . . . no "n".

Interesting how it appears to be okay for our Mexican friends to break the law and illegally enter this country - and we actually attempt to 'protect' them constitutionally . . . . were it reversed, there'd be hell to pay under the Mexican Constitution.

The law regarding illegal immigration must change.

I found it utterly nonsensical that the immigrants in this country protested against the Immigration Law being bounded about (and eventually shelved) in Congress . . . they were protesting because the US wants them to be legal! Not break the law? Even gave many illegal persons an opportunity to gain legal entry?

The reason this law didn't get passed: Bi-Partisan effort to kill it . . . the illegal immigrants are to valuable to big business for cheap labor. . .


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2286 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
the illegal immigrants are to valuable to big business for cheap labor

Yes, that is part of the reason. But unspoken is the fact that the 'native' American population is not reproducing enough replacements (2.1% pop. growth just to remain stable) to keep this economy running. As I always use as an example, if the population of city xyz decreases by x%, how many housing units do you build for the demand?


User currently offlineFDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 11):
Vincente Fox

Vicente . . . no "n".

It's actually Vincente. But the lithographer left the "n" off by mistake. Mr Fox, notoriusly frugal had his name changed to avoid further expense of reprinting the business cards. Hence: Vicente.

I'm just kidding. Thanks - Vicente Foxx.

BTW What kind of Spanish name is Fox?

[Edited 2006-04-16 21:02:27]

[Edited 2006-04-16 21:03:10]


You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2259 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 3):
Something tells me their take on the Mexican constitution might just be a little bit warped.

They might be a little warped, but not when it comes to this interpretation of the Mexican Constitution

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
I was saying that those measures would be unconstitutional in the US, not in Mexico.

Right now, but we could always amend the Constitution to make them legal.


User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6596 posts, RR: 35
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2244 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Slider, get a current Mexican Constitution and read it before you post excerpts from websites with agendas.

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

-Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.

Right, and I'm certainly glad of it.

- Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.

Depends on the type of immigrant. A legal one has no problem with basic
property rights, neither do foreigners, as long as they are in Mexico legally


- Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.

Illegal immigrants do. As well they should. Legal ones have no issue
whatsoever

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.

Define "real". The above statement is absolutely false. Legal immigrants
have no problem at all. Naturalized citizens are equal, under the law,
as "real" mexicans

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.

Legal immigrants and naturalized citizens can hold any executive or
judiciary public service position. Legal immigrants and foreigners are not
allowed to run for nor hold any position given by popular election

- Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.

Legal immigrants can become members of the clergy, even it it's one
worshipping freaking Satan. Naturalized citizens, I've already mentioned,
have absolutely the same rights as "real" Mexicans.

- Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.

True. I guess it's the same in any country. However, by law, no one can
ask you anything in the street without cause. (i.e., no policeman can come
without cause and ask for an ID, and believe me, that policeman will have a
lot of trouble explaining to his bosses after you are let go, what is it that
made him ask for your ID) So, how is a private citizen to know that he has
an "illegal" in sight?

- Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

Correct, illegal immigrants can be subject to that. Where else are they not?
Legal immigrants are not.

Mexico is not a banana republic. This is another idiotic thread looking to initiate a biased semi-racist discussion.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)

Has anyone heard of local firms specializing in acquiring the land under their name for a comission? Plus, this law is rooted in history, as a way to prevent any foreigner in aiding battleships from his country coming in through the ocean, or infantry through the borders. It's an anachronic piece of rethoric.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
"Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."

The key words being "of the Government" Now, the second part, well, doesn't it make sense?

Quoting Aloges (Reply 7):
In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

Nah, law changed in 1992. Naturalized Mexicans can now do it too. And even before the law changed, when Allende was overthrwon, the thousands of Chileans that immigrated to Mexico, got a lot of jobs in the customs area, through a decree granting them "refugee status"

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

Nah, changed, not anymore

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

I am not sure. I will have to check, but I am pretty sure it does not apply anymore.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."

False.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

Yes, absolutely true. And I am glad it exists. It is very rarely, though, when it's applied except as a way to extradite terrorists or dug kingpins wanted in the US on a fast track way.


25 Post contains links Cfalk : I beg to differ. here is the full text of the Mexican Constitution, as amended. http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html
26 Gilligan : Then it must pain you to see illegals marching in our country and not being rounded up and sent home. Again, it must kill you to see Gov. Arnold, Aus
27 AR385 : Please read the footnote. The translation is from a 1966 edition. Since then, the Mexican Constitution has been changed so many times, it hardly rema
28 AR385 : Whatever happens in the US with your laws (and mine) is the problem of the American constituents. I am only referring to my Constitution. And to bite
29 AR385 : See my previous answers. I don't give a flying dingo what goes on with the laws in the US, and whatever these laws allow.
30 Mham001 : AR385-how many legal immigrants does Mexico allow each year? Over a million on this side of the river, just last year.
31 AR385 : They are Mexican Nationals (except for the occasional group of Chinese or Central Americans) until they cross half the river. Then, according to your
32 N1120A : Which takes a whole hell of a lot and is not likely to happen. Also, it would significantly reduce the rights of many great Americans, like my father
33 Gilligan : But one can dream. By trying to get costs under control?
34 SFOMEX : Ignorance is bliss. I don't blame you for ignoring some facts from our southern neighbor, but at least don't make false statements out of thin air. M
35 Mham001 : I was wondering as I read your interpretation of your constitution how many legal immigrants Mexico allows in each year to make your points relavent
36 AR385 : Mham001, I am truly sorry, I did not understand your question. I thought you were referring sardonically to the people who cross into the US border.
37 LTBEWR : I would suggest that some of the restrictions on non-Mexicans as to certain rights (like of property in frontier and coastal regions) are there to pre
38 N1120A : Costs under control? It was his friend Kenneth Lay that screwed our economy to begin with. Also, you don't control costs by screwing hard working Fir
39 AR385 : While in principle you are right, and I am glad you did some research before posting anything, the 50.1% ownership varies on the industry. Some indus
40 Luisde8cd : I do. My family already did and they have started a new life in Monterrey. Mexico has been a very welcoming country for my family which is fleeing th
41 Mham001 : You need to read some of those pensions. Over the last decade or so, the Ca governments completely caved to the unions. Some municipalities are at or
42 Gilligan : Nice try, everyone now knows that it was CA that screwed themselves by forcing an agreement that did them no good in the end. Just another fine examp
43 Luisde8cd : Still a US Citizen holding a US passport just like you. He isn't a foreigner as the user I quoted pretended to say. Saludos desde Caracas, Luis
44 N1120A : Actually, it had nothing to do with the state government. The people of California voted in the measure that allowed Enron to rape our state based on
45 AR385 : As a Houston based ex-Enron employee, I can tell you that no matter what California did, Enron screwed them up with their electricity prices and dist
46 AR385 : Our culture extends for more than 8,000 years ago. The millenium was a nice event, another millenium for us, interesting but, overall, we've there, d
47 Post contains images AndesSMF : Those prison guards did get a huge raise as compared to others, I believe 30% might be close to the ballpark. As regards to Enron, I deal with electr
48 AR385 : Pacific Gas & Electric was a wholly owned Enron subsidiary
49 AndesSMF : Are you sure or are you pulling my leg? I mean, I dont discount what Enron did.
50 AM744 : The man is of Irish and Spanish descent, partly because of this he is not in touch with everyday problems faced by our society, nor is he identified
51 Luisde8cd : But he is way better than Lopez Obrador. I have my fingers crossed for both the PAN and PRI to agree on a single candidate so that AMLO doesn't win t
52 Mham001 : You went too far there. Mexico is well known for its caste system and its oppression of its indigenous. Don't get carried away with the rhetoric.
53 Theredbaron : Amen to That Luis! Lopez would make Chavez very happy and would ruin 10 years of slow but sure growth. One thing ...The illegal status in Mexico is no
54 N1120A : There wasn't any hesitation, Sacramento's hands were tied because the legislation was voter-approved, not a legislative process thing. They couldn't
55 AndesSMF : But they did have a cause. PG&E was forced to sell power at a loss, and if action had been taken, I believe it was a 10% fee increase, the crisis wou
56 Mham001 : Fully agree, I think the point is, is that Mexico has no right to lecture and push the US about its own immigration policies.
57 UALPHLCS : I agree with you. The problem is is that many pro-illegal immagration advocates are trying to confuse the issue and lump all who oppose illegal immag
58 Luisde8cd : They comitted a civil offense or misdemeanor. I ain't no layer but their "crime" is comparable with possession of marijuana. If all illegals get jail
59 Seb146 : Yeah... why does the United States make it so easy for illegals? I work with Mexicans and Guatamalans. I don't know if they are fully legal or not, b
60 AR385 : What caste system? Our population is more than 90% mestizo 5% indigineous and 5% white. The indigienous population is not oppressed, to the contrary,
61 AR385 : I apologize, I got confused with Portland Gas & Electric, which "we" owned.
62 Mham001 : Yea right, how many dark skinned folks will you see on the TV? Virtually none, the lighter your skin, the higher up the ladder you are-in most facets
63 N1120A : The whole point of deregulation was to decrease fees, not increase them. That was the problem. They sold the voters one thing and gave them another.
64 AR385 : Wrong again. Many programs in TV feature dark skinned people. I wonder which channels you watch. Maybe in the circles of the Mexican society where yo
65 Captaink : Mexico is a great country. I have been living here for about 10 months and knew nothing about the country before I came. My family lives in NY, and sa
66 AndesSMF : I tell, my wife's family is from Mexico, and they are still very proud of their country, even though the live in the USA.
67 Seb146 : Great. Be proud of who you are and where you came from. But, there comes a point where the United States has to say "We can no longer afford to take
68 Captaink : The people i spoke of as being proud actually live here.... Living in another country doesn't diminish your pride either. You know the Mexican's that
69 UALPHLCS : So what's your point? Yes people who have smoked marijauna or bought it are criminals based on the the laws of our country. As I mentioned before, I
70 AR385 : You have a functioning democracy or (corporocracy) with a Congress and a Senate. Legislators and Senators. Why don't you write to your representative
71 UALPHLCS : See how can you have a debate when I speak of real issues and you rant about artillery. And yes I do have access to my legistators but apparently the
72 N1120A : "They"? You make like the marchers were solely undoccumented. How compeletely wrong you are. Terrorists? The only significant terrorists in US histor
73 UALPHLCS : No you just read what you want to read. So if our intelligence manages to make the legal routes tougher the terorists will...what give up trying to g
74 N1120A : The law doesn't work when it comes to unskilled labor, which is the thing most needed in the US that the US cannot make enough of.
75 AR385 : Please read my reply no.24 You'll find a lot of answers to your questions. As for the needing to speak Spanish, well, I dunno, hand gesturing would p
76 AM744 : Mham001 has got a point. Sadly, Juarez is an exception.
77 Slider : And demand that which they have no right of claim to whatsoever. Fallacious nonsense that's been proven wrong. And even if you're right, that compone
78 Luisde8cd : You keep sounding like a Chavista or Resentido Social, the ones running the regime here. I guess that makes one more vote for AMLO. Saludos desde Car
79 N1120A : Proven wrong by who? Right wing front groups? Let's see, if we are all paying 20% more for produce at the market (Economist), then you end up driving
80 AR385 : I'll respectfully disagree with you. From Mexico City to the North, people are not dark skinned. That's about half the pop. of Mexico. A lot of these
81 UALPHLCS : The unemployment rate in the African American community is around 25% if I remember my stats correctly. I think there are plenty of workers already i
82 N1120A : You remember wrong. In 2002, when unemployement rates were higher, the rate was 11%. Additionally, 88% of African-Americans live in urban areas, mean
83 FDXMECH : I can tell you with certainty the lower prices we pay in produce are a pittance compared to the cost borne by the American taxpayer, social servicess
84 Post contains links Slider : I've posted this before, but it bears repeating, so that the repetition of the lies about illegal immigration don't take hold. http://www.nationalrev
85 N1120A : You ever see what construction workers make? Addtionally, insurance regulations limit the amount of undocumented labor that is actually able to work
86 Slider : If you can't acknowledge FACT, then there's no point in trying to have an intellectual argument. That was not an editorial, it was an economic breakd
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile? posted Wed Jun 21 2006 05:10:59 by KC135TopBoom
Should The US Moniter Visitors From The Mid. East? posted Mon Sep 13 2004 03:35:05 by TriJetFan1
Why Should The US Pay Terrorists? posted Thu Mar 13 2003 13:12:51 by Virgin744
Should The US Go To Value Added Tax (VAT)? posted Sat Oct 12 2002 20:31:40 by Mls515
Should The US Pull Out Of The Middle East? posted Thu Aug 30 2001 10:19:21 by Airic
Should The US Adopt Socialism? posted Sun Jun 18 2000 00:24:36 by Whippy
Should I Join The US Army? posted Tue May 24 2005 08:00:26 by USAir330
Should We Use The Euro In The US? posted Thu Apr 1 2004 22:31:29 by North County
Going To The US - Should I Shave? posted Sat Mar 13 2004 16:05:23 by 707CMF
Should Canada And The US Ditch The Border? posted Tue Aug 13 2002 21:38:39 by Boeing4ever