|
Upright
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Quote:
Please explain what you mean by this. (It is my intention to move to Mexico and from what I have read differs from your statement). Thanks.
|
Most people (at least the ones I know) have heard dozens of stories regarding land ownership, paying for health care, and the rights (or lack thereof) of non-citizens. A brief seach yielded the following. If you need more information than this, it should at least get you pointed in the right direction.
Link
Quote:
The Mexican Solution
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Washington Times, April 4, 2006
{snip}
If you think these critics are mad about U.S. immigration policy now, imagine how upset they would be if we adopted an approach far more radical than the bill they rail against that was adopted last year by the House of Representatives—namely, the way Mexico treats illegal aliens.
In fact, as a just-published paper by the Center for Security Policy’s J. Michael Waller points out, under a constitution first adopted in 1917 and subsequently amended, Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called “racist” and “xenophobic.”
For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:
•Pursuant to Article 33, “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.
•Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. 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.”
{snip}
•Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, 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.”
•Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.” What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16 states, “In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right.
•The Mexican constitution states that foreigners—not just illegal immigrants—may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to 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.”
As the immigration debate in the Senate moves into a decisive phase this week, legislators who believe America's southern border must be secured, the nation's existing immigration laws enforced and illegal aliens not rewarded with permanent residency and a direct path to citizenship are being sharply criticized and, in some cases, defamed as bigots and xenophobes.
Yet, even their maximalist positions generally pale in comparison with the treatment authorized by the Mexican constitution.
So the next time such legislators -- and the majority of Americans for whom they speak -- are assaulted by Mexican officials, undocumented aliens waving Mexican flags in mass demonstrations here in the United States, clergy and self-described humanitarians, businessmen and other advocates of illegal immigration, ask them this: Would they favor having the U.S. impose the same restrictions on immigrants -- legal and illegal -- that Mexico imposes on their counterparts there?
{snip}
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.
|
Link
Quote:
{snip}
A report by the Center for US-Mexican Studies and the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies reported 2,000 human rights violations of Central American migrants in the south of Mexico between 1998 and 1999. The US Committee for Refugees reported that, in 2001, Mexico deported 1,000 migrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America to Guatemala simply because they came to Mexico through Guatemala.
Mexico detained 85 percent of the people who applied for asylum in 2001. They were held in a detention facility in Mexico City that eventually became so overcrowded, it no longer met established international minimum standards. That same year, Mexico arrested 87 Christian Iraqis, men, women and children, in Tijuana. Because the detention facility in Mexico City was overcrowded, they were shipped to a naval base in Campeche, on the other side of the country. After several months in detention, they were allowed to apply for asylum--in the United States, not Mexico. At least 355 migrants died trying to get into Mexico in 2001.
Mexico launched Plan Sur in July of that same year. Thousands of soldiers were deployed to the southern states of Chiapas and Oaxaca to patrol the border. In 2002, over 57,000 illegal immigrants were arrested in and deported from Chiapas. They were the ones in groups that had no "human passports"--women who have sex, willingly or unwillingly, with Mexican officials as the price of entry for their group.
|
http://www.novahomeloans.com/cms/ind...3/93352/93358/
Quote:
The Mexican Constitution vests ownership of all land, water, natural resources, and airspace in the Mexican nation.
Therefore, land ownership is limited to surface rights and to Mexicans by birth, naturalized citizens, and Mexican companies.
Mexico's constitution restricts or prohibits direct foreign ownership of land in the prohibited zones, which includes 100 kilometers along the border, 50 kilometers along the coast, and all of Baja California.
|
There are periodic situations in which land is offered for sale to foreigners. There can be official promises that the title is secure, but it isn't. Once the property is developed, there is a good chance that the Mexican government will discover a "problem with title." I have in-laws who had their Mexican home seized by the Mexican government about 30 years ago. They usually wait ten or twenty years between seizures of the land, in order to give the gullible a chance to forget what happened to the last foreigners who thought they had purchased Mexican land. And to build homes and hotels the government can confiscate.
The most recent one I heard of is Punta Banda/Baja Beach and Tennis Club.
http://www.mexican-car-insurance.com/Mex_info.htm
Quote:
|
Automobile insurance issued outside the country is not valid in Mexico, and you must obtain insurance from a Mexican company. You must do this at the border before entering Mexico. As in other parts of Latin America, if there is an accident, both drivers can be held responsible pending an investigation. They can be jailed and their vehicles seized if there is no proof of ability to pay. In case of serious personal injury, both drivers may be jailed in any event.
|
http://www.amnestyusa.org/regions/am...256900006932A2
Quote:
Amnesty International has documented an increase in the number of cases of "disappearance" in Mexico reported to the organization over the last four years [1]. In most cases, there is strong, or even incontrovertible, evidence of official participation in carrying out "disappearances", yet those responsible continue to benefit from impunity. The organisation believes that unless immediate and active steps are adopted to halt this trend the Mexican government could be fuelling the return of widespread and systematic state-sponsored "disappearances" which beset the country during the 1970s and early 1980s when hundreds "disappeared" there.
Most of the latest "disappearances" reported to Amnesty International took place in the context of alleged counter-insurgency and anti-narcotics operations and victims include members of peasant organizations, indigenous people, students and teachers.
In many cases, they "disappeared" following their witnessed detention by members of the armed and police forces. However, their detention is then repeatedly denied by the security forces and the Mexican Government. Following national and international campaigns on their behalf, some have reappeared weeks or months later bearing signs of torture. In a small number of cases, the bodies of the "disappeared" were subsequently recovered with evidence that they were extrajudicially executed.
Neither the victims nor their relatives appear to have any effective recourse before the law in Mexico for seeking redress for these gross human rights violations, particularly when the armed forces are involved. The military jurisdiction under which these cases invariably fall when there is suspected army involvement has continued to provide a blanket of impunity for the perpetrators.
|
And yet, the recent demonstrators in the US waved Mexican flags. 
The following link alone makes all of the complaints about Camp X-ray appear laughable. All of the recent demonstrators should read it as well.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/...256F5C0047BAFD
I probably shouldn't write any more, because doing so just increases the scorn I feel for those demonstrators. However, I suggest that after you move to Mexico that you refrain from participating in any demonstrations.
Last edited by SteelyLoins; 04-15-2006 at 08:54 PM..
|