UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

Those participating in tomorrow's boycott may congest our streets, and may provide a certain disruption of the economy Certainly that is their goal.

Now that immigrants have grabbed the nation's attention, what next?

Monday has been set aside for immigrants to boycott work, school and shopping to show how much they matter to their communities. But with some growing tired of street protests, and others afraid they'll be deported or fired for walking out, people are planning to support the effort in myriad ways.

Some will work but buy nothing on Monday. Others will protest at lunch breaks or at rallies after work. There will be church services, candlelight vigils, picnics and human chains.

The range of activities shows both how powerful the immigrants' rights movement has become in a matter of weeks, and that organizers don't yet have a clear focus on its next step.

But this boycott won't be absolute.

No, they aren't boycotting everything American.

They are not boycotting American liberties, the likes of which they are not guaranteed in their own homelands and which are specifically prohibitted to foreigners in Mexico and a number of other Latin American countries.

They aren't boycotting American social services -- they will still use the free health care and cash the welfare checks provided by the American taxpayer.

They will still use our roads and mass transit, again heavily subsidized by American citizens and legal immigrants.

Personally, I urge those participating in tomorrow's events to boycott one -- and only one -- American thing.

Boycott American air.

Hold your breaths until you turn blue -- for the entire 24 hours.

And meditate upon this paraphrase of a MeCHA slogan.

“Para los ciudadanos, todo. Para los mojados, nada.” -- For the citizens, everything. For the wetbacks, nothing.

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

It looks like members of Mexico’s Congress have no scruples against interfering with the internal affairs of the United States of America. They are sending a delegation to “El Norte” to support and participate in Monday’s “Day Without Immigrants”.

Mexican lawmakers issued a declaration of support for immigrant protests planned in the United States on Monday and said they will send a delegation to Los Angeles to show their solidarity.

The declaration, issued late Thursday by all the political parties in the lower house of Congress, contrasts with the position of Mexico's Foreign Department, which has said it will discipline any consular officials who take part in the protests.

The delegation of lawmakers will meet with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, it said in a news release from Congress.

"The only thing we are looking for is to end this dehumanizing situation and get the recognition of the migrant labor force," Federal Deputy Maria Garcia said. "People who go looking for work should not be treated like criminals with the risk of being tried in federal courts."

Activists are urging immigrants across the United States to skip work, avoid spending money and march in the streets to demonstrate their importance to the U.S. economy.

The protest, dubbed "A Day Without Immigrants," comes as the U.S. Congress debates immigration bills proposing everything from toughened border security to the legalization of all 11 million undocumented migrants in America.

Interestingly enough, such participation would be illegal if it were reversed – say, a group of American politicians traveling to Mexico to participate in a rally against the corruption endemic in the Mexican political system or the official collusion with drug trafficking. You see, this little provision is a part of the Mexican Constitution.

"Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

So you see, these individuals are coming here to participate in a rally that US government officials would be forbidden to participate in if it were held in Mexico. Heck, if the situation were reversed, many of those protesting would be forbidden to participate in the protest, and would be subject to summary deportation without due process!

Once again, we see Mexico's leaders demanding the US act in a manner that Mexico itself would not -- and could not -- act under its own Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 06:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

On the other hand, Mexicans get free medical care in the US, courtesy of citizen-taxpayers who receive no such free care.

Take this case of a Canadian man who still, after a week, has received no medical care from Mexican doctors despite serious, possibly life-threatening, injuries.

A Cape Breton woman whose son survived a fall from a sixth-floor balcony in Mexico says doctors there wonÂ’t set his broken bones without cash up front.

Carol Campbell says her son, Jason Campbell, broke both legs and his pelvis in the fall last Wednesday at a Mexican tourist resort in Puerto Vallarta, where he remains in hospital.

His mother says since then, the 25-year-old has been given only pain medication and antibiotics.

"My son is still laying there with broken legs, broken pelvis, bones coming out of his legs," the woman told Global News on Monday in Sydney.

"His legs are swelling worse than balloons, his eye, I donÂ’t know what state his eye is in, his teeth, heÂ’s bruised everywhere."

Jason Campbell was in Mexico with friends. His family admits he had been drinking before he fell.

His father, Wallace Campbell, says "all I know is, from the doctors down there, is he is going to be paralyzed for the rest of his life and as far as internal bleeding, they wonÂ’t let me know anything."

The family says doctors are demanding up to $40,000 to treat CampbellÂ’s broken bones.

His mother says he didnÂ’t have a health plan in Alberta, where he now works in the oil industry.

Now the family is trying to raise money to get him home.

"We have some fundraising going on in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Alberta," says Theresa Petrie, the young manÂ’s sister-in-law.

Carol Campbell says she has turned everwhere to get help for her son — the Canadian Consulate in Mexico, the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa, friends, family and politicians.

Gordie Gosse, an NDP member of the Nova Scotia legislature, says itÂ’s a sad situation.

"We have a Canadian citizen that’s stuck in a foreign country in very severely, bad shape at this time and needs medical attention right away — and has been injured now for almost a week, and has no medical attention."

As i have asked in the past -- can't we treat those who have broken our nation's laws with as much disdain as Mexico shows foreigners in their country -- legal or otherwise? That would solve the illegal immigration problem in short order.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh those poor law-breaking border jumpers!

Stepped-up immigration enforcement in South Texas has made a long-standing predicament even worse: Increasing numbers of undocumented residents find themselves trapped, unable to get past beefed-up highway checkpoints.

Many are teenagers who rarely stray from their towns and neighborhoods for fear of getting deported.

''These kids go to school here, they've grown up here, and are as American as anyone, except they have no documents," said Kyle Brown, a McAllen immigration lawyer. "They can't go back to Mexico and can't go out of the Valley. It's a problem we see over and over."

Such immigrants are thought to number in the tens of thousands, Brown and other immigration lawyers say, and their ranks are growing as the illegal immigrant population swells.

Typical is the Carrizales family. Irma Alvarado de Carrizales is a legal U.S. resident. But two of her four children have no documents.

Travel is risky, said Carrizales, who lives in the McAllen area. And family getaways — jaunts to Sea World, the Alamo or Six Flags Over Texas — are out of the question.

"South Padre Island is the only place we can go," she said. ''We are prisoners of the Valley."

No, you are foreign invaders who refuse to return to your proper side of the border. You are lawbreakers who think your crimes should be without consequences. The fact that you have to hide out from the authorities is no more a violation of your rights or dignity than the need of an escaped convict to avoid attracting the attention of the police while on the lam.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’ll gladly denounce the perpetrator of these threats.

The lieutenant governor and the mayor of Los Angeles, both Hispanic Democrats, have received threats amid a national debate over immigration policy, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Monday.

Schwarzenegger told reporters about the threats against Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante during a news conference in his office Monday.

Other elected officials of Mexican heritage have also received threats, Schwarzenegger said, but he did not name them.

Bustamante spokesman Steve Green said the lieutenant governor appeared at some immigration rallies with Villaraigosa in March and received "nasty e-mails" afterward. The death threat _ "The only good Mexican is a dead Mexican" _ came about three weeks ago on a postcard, he said.

Americans of Mexican descent and legal aliens are welcome in my book, even when I disagree with them. Even my opposition to illegal aliens does not extend to cold-blooded murder.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

Mom and Dad are here illegally – they need to be deported. None of the extraneous details about the kids are relevant.

It was about 6:30 in the evening and the woman had dinner on the stove.

Her husband came though the door after a dusty day of work with Cornejo & Sons Construction. He was cheery as always, she said. But the U.S. Marshals that came to the porch of their Wichita home minutes later changed that.

The marshals arrested Jaime Villagrana following his indictment on four counts of using a fake Social Security number to land his job. He is in the U.S. illegally and after being deported once before, had returned.

For some Americans and a majority of Kansans, the question of how the U.S. should deal with illegal immigration is cut and dried: Find those who shouldn't be here and deport them.

But the reality of deportation is complicated, those who deport illegal immigrants for a living say.

Villagrana and his wife, Manuela, for example, have two young children who were born in Wichita and are by law American citizens.

Villagrana's take-home pay -- after taxes and Social Security deductions -- supported his family, but his 7-month-old son, Guillermo, has an undiagnosed illness that requires a respirator and 20-hour-a-day professional attention He has received thousands of dollars in Medicaid services for his care.

If Villagrana is prison, and Manuela is forced to leave, what will happen to the children?

In the debate over whether the U.S. should more aggressively deport those who are here illegally, cases like the Villagranas show that easy answers are hard to find.

There are three options available here – let the parents decide.

The first one is for the parents to take the children with them. The kids can return when they are adults, and start the process of bringing the parents over after the turn 18. That is the legal method of immigration.

The second is for them to find a nice American family to raise the children for them – or a family member who is here legally (notice that the status of the husband’s brother is pointedly not addressed). The kids can then sponsor the parents back when the turn 18. Again, that is the proper legal process for getting the parents into the country.

The third option is terminating the parental rights of the parents, for it sounds like it is not in the best interests of the children to be sent to Mexico. We might even consider writing such a provision into American law, automatically severing the parental rights of any illegal whose child is born an American citizen. These children would be legally free for adoption by American families, and would be raised in America as American citizens. And the beauty of this approach is that the illegal immigrant birth-parents would have no claim to being family members. This would certainly eliminate the incentive to have anchor babies, for they could then never sponsor the deported parents into the US – and it certainly is easier than amending the Constitution to deny citizenship to the children of illegals.

Do I sound heartless, given the health problems of little Guillermo? Probably – but my personal choice would be option number two or three, which would ensure that this child has all the benefits that come with American citizenship.

But I have not one ounce of sympathy for the parents – they have broken our laws and invaded our country. They need to be removed immediately.

To paraphrase a slogan popular among supporters of illegal immigration, “Para los ciudadanos, todo. Para los mojados, nada.”

For the citizens, everything. For the wetbacks, nothing.

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Stop The ACLU, Uncooperative Blogger, Third World Country, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Camelot Destra Ideale, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck on Stupid, TMH Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Liberal Wrong Wing, Publius Rendezvous

Posted by: Greg at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 717 words, total size 6 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

Mom and Dad are here illegally – they need to be deported. None of the extraneous details about the kids are relevant.

It was about 6:30 in the evening and the woman had dinner on the stove.

Her husband came though the door after a dusty day of work with Cornejo & Sons Construction. He was cheery as always, she said. But the U.S. Marshals that came to the porch of their Wichita home minutes later changed that.

The marshals arrested Jaime Villagrana following his indictment on four counts of using a fake Social Security number to land his job. He is in the U.S. illegally and after being deported once before, had returned.

For some Americans and a majority of Kansans, the question of how the U.S. should deal with illegal immigration is cut and dried: Find those who shouldn't be here and deport them.

But the reality of deportation is complicated, those who deport illegal immigrants for a living say.

Villagrana and his wife, Manuela, for example, have two young children who were born in Wichita and are by law American citizens.

Villagrana's take-home pay -- after taxes and Social Security deductions -- supported his family, but his 7-month-old son, Guillermo, has an undiagnosed illness that requires a respirator and 20-hour-a-day professional attention He has received thousands of dollars in Medicaid services for his care.

If Villagrana is prison, and Manuela is forced to leave, what will happen to the children?

In the debate over whether the U.S. should more aggressively deport those who are here illegally, cases like the Villagranas show that easy answers are hard to find.

There are three options available here – let the parents decide.

The first one is for the parents to take the children with them. The kids can return when they are adults, and start the process of bringing the parents over after the turn 18. That is the legal method of immigration.

The second is for them to find a nice American family to raise the children for them – or a family member who is here legally (notice that the status of the husband’s brother is pointedly not addressed). The kids can then sponsor the parents back when the turn 18. Again, that is the proper legal process for getting the parents into the country.

The third option is terminating the parental rights of the parents, for it sounds like it is not in the best interests of the children to be sent to Mexico. We might even consider writing such a provision into American law, automatically severing the parental rights of any illegal whose child is born an American citizen. These children would be legally free for adoption by American families, and would be raised in America as American citizens. And the beauty of this approach is that the illegal immigrant birth-parents would have no claim to being family members. This would certainly eliminate the incentive to have anchor babies, for they could then never sponsor the deported parents into the US – and it certainly is easier than amending the Constitution to deny citizenship to the children of illegals.

Do I sound heartless, given the health problems of little Guillermo? Probably – but my personal choice would be option number two or three, which would ensure that this child has all the benefits that come with American citizenship.

But I have not one ounce of sympathy for the parents – they have broken our laws and invaded our country. They need to be removed immediately.

To paraphrase a slogan popular among supporters of illegal immigration, “Para los ciudadanos, todo. Para los mojados, nada.”

For the citizens, everything. For the wetbacks, nothing.

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Stop The ACLU, Uncooperative Blogger, Third World Country, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Camelot Destra Ideale, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck on Stupid, TMH Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Liberal Wrong Wing, Publius Rendezvous

Posted by: Greg at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 722 words, total size 6 kb.

Guess what – it wasn’t the GOP that backed the proposal in the House immigration bill that makes illegal aliens felons. It was the Democrats.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) issued a joint statement on Tuesday making it clear that it was Democrats who insisted on making unlawful presence in the United States a felony rather than a misdemeanor.

"In December, the House of Representatives passed a strong border security bill aimed at securing our borders and preventing illegal immigration," the statement said.

"However, on December 16, 2005, there were 191 House Democrats who voted to oppose House Republican efforts to reduce the crime of unlawful presence in the United States from a felony to a misdemeanor. Instead, they voted to make felons out of all of those who remain in our country illegally. (Some conservative Republicans also favored making unlawful presence a felony.)

"While we are disappointed with the House Democrat's lack of compassion and the continued efforts by Senator Reid to block action on immigration legislation so that Congress can proceed to conference, it remains our intent to produce a strong border security bill that will not make unlawful presence in the United States a felony."

But which party is now portrayed as the friend of the illegal immigrant? The one that overwhelmingly opposed making unlawful presence in the US a misdemeanor.

Who says the MSM isnÂ’t biased? Who says that immigrant groups are not in the pocket of the Democrat party? Who says that the Democrats arenÂ’t hypocrites?

No one I know, thatÂ’s for sure.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

They marched for the rights of lawbreakers, and were fired as a result. Now they want their jobs back.

A manager at a Detroit meatpacking plant said Monday that 15 immigrant women were fired last month after attending a protest for immigrant rights. He said they had been told that they would be terminated if they missed work on the day of the protest.

But the workers and an activist working on their behalf said the women were given no such assurances. If the workers knew they would have been fired for attending the March 27 rally in Detroit, they never would have skipped the morning shift, said Elena Herrada, a Detroit activist who is trying to help the women get their jobs back.

Herrada and about 20 union officials went Monday to Wolverine Packing Co. offices on Rivard to inquire about what happened. They were given a letter signed by general manager Jay Bonahoom, explaining why the workers were terminated.

* * *

Bonahoom said that as far as Wolverine knows, the workers were documented, but an employment agency does the actual hiring. He said the workers had been told, "written and verbally," on the Friday before the protests that their attendance was mandatory on the day of the protest.

They were fired "for standing up for their rights," Herrada said.

The fired workers were natives of Mexico and many had worked at the plant for several years. Most have children and are worried about supporting their families, Herrada said.

They should have thought of that when they skipped work. But then again, it is questionable whether any of them had the right to be in this country at all, much less working here. Take this woman who was fired as an example.

"It was not fair,'" said Mercedes, a 31-year-old Detroit woman who attended the rally and was fired. "We went to fight for our rights." Mercedes is undocumented and asked that her last name not be used.

Want to bet that her friends fall in the same category?

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

That is certainly what it looks like, since it refuses to stop (and even encourages) the massive violation of American sovereignty by its citizens.

Fox, according to Casey Wian on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight (March 31), "is still refusing to do anything to stop the millions of illegal aliens ... saying he won't restrict the freedom of movement of Mexican citizens."

The Associated Press reports, "Mexico has long cited a freedom-of-movement clause in its Constitution as prohibiting any attempt to stop would-be Mexican migrants from massing at border towns. Former Mexican Interior Secretary Santiago Creel actually said his country would never help to secure the southern border. 'We are not going to do that,' Creel told Jerry Kammer of the Copley News Service. Creel claimed Mexico's Constitution provides for 'complete freedom of movement' for Mexicans inside Mexico. 'We can't put up a checkpoint or a customs station inside our territory,' Creel said."

Yet these statements seem contrary to the Constitution and law when the whole picture is viewed. Starting with the fact that there is more to the applicable constitutional article than just its first sentence.

Article 11 states: "Everyone has the right to enter and leave the Republic, to travel through its territory and to change their residence without need of a letter of security, passport, safe-conduct or other similar requisites. The exercise of this right will be subordinate to the powers of the judiciary in cases of criminal or civil liability, and to those of administrative authority with regard to limitations that laws on emigration, immigration and general health of the Republic, or on pernicious foreign residents in the country, may impose."

And the key of course is in the second sentence, namely "will be subordinate to" — with the General Population Law being the primary directive.

Mexico, you see, can act to secure its border with the US -- but chooses not to do so.

More to the point, laws already exist to do exactly that. Besides -- stopping the border-jumpoing would lead to social and economic pressures to reform the corrupt Mexican political system.

But Mexico instead finds it profitible to let its exces workers head to El Norte and send back billions -- and so ignores its own laws while encouraging the violation of ours.

Mr. Fox -- if you have no respect for US law, at least show some respect for the laws of Mexico.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

Tell that to the American citizens who lost their jobs in this story.

An Alabama employment agency that sent 70 laborers and construction workers to job sites in that state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina says the men were sent home after just two weeks on the job by employers who told them "the Mexicans had arrived" and were willing to work for less.

Linda Swope, who operates Complete Employment Services Inc. in Mobile, Ala., told The Washington Times last week that the workers -- whom she described as U.S. citizens, residents of Alabama and predominantly black -- had been "urgently requested" by contractors hired to rebuild and clear devastated areas of the state, but were told to leave three job sites when the foreign workers showed up.

"After Katrina, our company had 70 workers on the job the first day, but the companies decided they didn't need them anymore because the Mexicans had arrived," Mrs. Swope said. "I assure you it is not true that Americans don't want to work.

"We had been told that 270 jobs might be available, and we could have filled every one of them with men from this area, most of whom lost their jobs because of the hurricane," she said. "When we told the guys they would not be needed, they actually cried ... and we cried with them. This is a shame."

Mrs. Swope said employment agencies throughout Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi faced similar problems, when thousands of men from Mexico and several Central and South American countries -- many in crowded buses and trucks -- came into the three states after Katrina, looking for employment and willing to work for less money.

And no doubt the jobs here are being funded with the dollars of US taxpayers -- dollars which are being shipped back to Mexico and other parts of Latin America.

Because you see, there really are not many "jobs Americans won't do". The problem is that illegal labor undercuts American wages and fattens the bottom line of greedy, unethical employers.

We need employer sanctions now -- to save American jobs for Americans.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, wouldn't a lot of illegals be found at these rallies? Turn loose the folks charged with getting rid of illegals at a time and place where we know there will be many illegals -- we could make a good start to removing the law breakers.

In churches, shops and sidewalks across the Washington region yesterday, thousands of people bustled in preparation for a rally that immigration advocates say could be a pivotal moment for Latinos and other groups seeking to demonstrate their political clout.

Organizers of the National Day of Action for Immigrant Justice -- or La Marcha , as some volunteers are calling it -- said it could draw as many as 180,000 people to the Mall and hundreds of thousands more in nearly 100 cities nationwide.

Although no one knows for certain how many people will show up at the D.C. rally, the event has the potential to complicate the afternoon rush hour.

This afternoon, scores of buses will begin moving protesters from throughout the region to the District. CASA of Maryland, an immigrant rights group, has arranged for more than 40 buses to take them to Seventh Street NW between Madison and Jefferson drives. Fifteen additional buses will run a loop six times between CASA's Silver Spring office and the Takoma Metro station and are expected to carry about 5,000 people, said Kim Propeack, advocacy director for CASA.

Mexicanos Sin Fronteras, a D.C.-based immigrant rights group, will send about 20 buses from Virginia to Meridian Hill Park in the Adams Morgan area, said Farah Fosse of the Latino Economic Development Corp., a local organizer.

There, the participants will join neighborhood residents in a march down 16th and 15th streets NW to the Mall. Police plan to temporarily close some streets along the way.

If they want to step out and demand rights and citizenship, we should impose upon them a basic duty -- following the laws of the United States.

Would that the will existed to start today.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Could this be the solution?

Senate Republicans reached agreement last night on a compromise immigration measure that they believe will garner enough bipartisan support to break through a parliamentary impasse that has stymied progress on a high-stakes border security bill for two weeks.

Under the agreement, the Senate would allow undocumented workers a path to lawful employment and citizenship if they could prove -- through work stubs, utility bills or other documents -- that they have been in the country for five years. To attain citizenship, those immigrants would have to pay a $2,000 penalty, back taxes, learn English, undergo a criminal background check and remain working for 11 years.

Those who have been here a shorter time would have to return to one of 16 designated ports of entry, such as El Paso, Tex., and apply for a new form of temporary work visa for low-skilled and unskilled workers. An additional provision still under consideration would disqualify illegal immigrants who have been in the country less than two years.

Like it or not, sending all the illegals back would be impossible -- we lack the will and the means. After all, what do you do with someone who has been in this country for 15 years and who has three US citizen children? What do you do with folks who are married to US citizens? This plan recognizes the different levels of ties that have developed within the illegal immigrant population -- differences I see on a daily basis at my school -- and tries to use them. to make reasonable distinctions.

I may not like the amnesty provisions of this (or any other) bill, but I recognize that there is a realistic need for some accommodation of those who have been here hte longest.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

We ought to prohibit all political participation by aliens -- no contributions, no lobbying, no demonstrations.

We ought to deny all aliens employment in this country, until and unless it can be demonstrated that no American will take a given job. No foreigners -- or even naturalized citizens -- should be permitted to hold any position as military officers, American-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

Immigrants, even after naturalization, should be prohibitted from holding elective or appointed office -- or serving as members of clergy.

Property rights should be severely restricted for immigrants, denying them ownership of real property or concessions for mineral exploration and production.

All aliens engaged in illegal conduct -- including immigration offenses -- should be subject to apprehension and citizen's arrest by any American.

Any and all foreigners -- even those in the United States legally -- should be subject to immediate expulsion by the executive branch without due process and without recourse to the courts.

By now, of course, readers must be horrified, and must be wondering if I have gone insane. After all, how could I possibly conceive of such laws, much less suggest implementing them agains these poor, defenseless immigrants streamingover the border from mexico -- good people who just want to work?

Easy -- these are identical to elements of the MEXICAN CONSTITUTION related to the rights of immigrants and limitations upon them. These restrictions are pointed out by the Center for Immigration Security in their new report, Mexico's Glass House.

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."

* Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

* Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.

In accordance with Article 130, immigrants - even legal ones - may not become members of the clergy, either.

* 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."

Hey, if these provisions are good enough for Mexico to enforce against poor innocent foreigners just looking for work and a better life, then certainly the government of Presidente Pendejo Vincente Fox cannot object to the enforcement of similar provisions in this country -- much less our own significantly less draconian immigration laws.

Round 'em up! Ship 'em back! Rawhide!

(H/T Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE: Over at Colossus of Rhodey, there is a lot more information on just how much Mexico restricts foreigners.

It's worth noting the chutzpah it takes for an illegal immigrant to join a protest which claims illegals have a right to stay, live and work in the U.S. Maybe these illegals, especially Mexicans, ought to consider how their own country treats illegal immigrants, particularly from Central America:

Mexico’s own immigration policies are the exact opposite of what it relentlessly advocates in the United States. Its entry permits favor scientists, technicians, teachers of underrepresented disciplines, and others likely to contribute to “national progress.” Immigrants may only enter through established ports and at designated times. Anyone not presenting the proper documentation and health certificates won’t get in; the transportation company that brought him must pay his return costs. Foreigners who do not “strictly comply” with the entry conditions will face deportation. Steve Royster, who worked in the American consulate in Mexico from 1999 to 2001, presided over several deportations of Americans who had overstayed their visas. “They were given a choice: accept deportation or go to jail,” he says.

Providing full college tuition or all-expenses-paid secondary and primary education for illegal American students in Mexico? Unthinkable. Until recently, U.S.-born children of Mexican parents weren’t even allowed to enroll in Mexican public schools, reserved for Mexican citizens only. The parents would have to bribe officials for Mexican birth certificates for their kids. (The 1998 change in the Mexican constitution to allow dual nationality now makes enrollment by U.S.-born Mexicans possible.) “We’re not friendly with immigrants; that’s a big difference with the speech we have here with American schools,” admits a Mexican diplomat.

MexicoÂ’s border police have reportedly engaged in rapes, robberies, and beatings of illegal aliens from Central and South America on their way to the U.S. Yet compared with the extensive immigrant-advocacy network in the U.S., few pressure groups exist in Mexico to protest such treatment. If Americans run afoul of MexicoÂ’s border police, watch out. In 1996, the Mexican police beat and shot in the back a teenage American girl who had led them on a high-speed chase in Tijuana.No one in the U.S. or Mexico raised a fuss, at least publicly.

Contrast that incident with another that occurred in the U.S. a few months earlier. A vanload of Mexican illegals in California had fled from the border patrol and the Riverside County deputies, throwing metal bars and beer cans at their pursuers and sideswiping cars to divert attention. When the van stopped, the deputies caught two of the fleeing occupants and beat them. Mexico’s foreign ministry turned the beating into an international human rights incident, attributing it to “discriminatory attitudes that lead to institutional violence.” Mexican diplomats formally protested to state and federal officials, and helped the two beaten Mexicans file multimillion-dollar lawsuits against the deputies and Riverside County.

More of the duplicitous, hypocritcal "Do as we say, not as we do" attitude towards the rights of foreigners, legal or not, down in Mexico. Isn't it time that we insist upon playing by the same rules as they do, rather than becoming the safety valve for all of Mexico's social and economic problems?

MORE AT Publius Rendevous, Wall Street Cafe, Conservative Outpost, Iowa Voice, Queen of All Evil, RTOYAMM, Don Singleton, Gringoman, Noisy Room

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1305 words, total size 10 kb.