My immigration laws

really depends on what is meant by "backed up"

0 Replies

Another case of what "is" is, huh?

0 Replies

Set,
Are you saying that I misquoted the Mexican constitution?
If you are saying that,then post the correct quotes.
If I took anything out of context,show me where I was wrong!!

Are you saying that those laws are not in the constitution of Mexico?
I posted a link to the Mexican Constitution,so you can read it yourself.

Now,are you really going to say I am wrong,or are you just mad because I backed up my claim about what their laws are?

I claimed what their laws are,I posted the link to their constitution,and I quoted EXACTLY from the Mexican Constitution.

So,how am I wrong about what it says.

Walter,
I guess that according to Roxanne,that means that the men who wrote the constitution were all German,because it cant have been translated from the original language into German,could it.

0 Replies

There is no direct correlation between the Rush-puke your first posted, and the sections of the Mexican constitution which you eventually posted.

That claim has exactly the same worth as claims about what the bible means--it requires tortured exegesis to connect the one to the other.

You're peddling strethchers here, and you haven't backed up squat.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Walter,
I guess that according to Roxanne,that means that the men who wrote the constitution were all German,because it cant have been translated from the original language into German,could it.

That happened because their were better German speaking publishers than English speaking ones.

0 Replies

here I thought that most of the publishers were dutch. I am so misinformed.

0 Replies

That's only because they are illegal - like nearly everyone in NM.

0 Replies

Here in New Mexico it's illegal to be legal. Actually there was quite some controvesy when the US Government granted native americans citizen as quite a large number of native americans found it offensive to be "granted citizenship" in a courtry that was their's to begin with.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

There is no direct correlation between the Rush-puke your first posted, and the sections of the Mexican constitution which you eventually posted.

That claim has exactly the same worth as claims about what the bible means--it requires tortured exegesis to connect the one to the other.

You're peddling strethchers here, and you haven't backed up squat.

My claim...

Quote:

Foreigners will not have the right to vote, I don't care how long they are here, nor will they ever be allowed to hold political office.

Mexican Constitution...

Quote:

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

Quote:

Article 9. The right to assemble or associate peaceably for any lawful purpose cannot be restricted; but only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.

Quote:

but this right may only be exercised in political matters by citizens of the Republic.

My claim...

Quote:

If you do come and you want to buy land, okay, but we're going to restrict your options. You will not be allowed to buy waterfront property in the United States. That will be reserved for citizens naturally born in this country.

Mexican Constitution...

Quote:

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

.

Those are just a couple of examples.
Are you still going to try and say there is no correlation to what I originally posted?

0 Replies

if 6 were 9.

0 Replies

Yes, i am.

In the first place, the screed which you cut and pasted from another source, without having the honesty to acknowledge until someone else tracked it down, plays fast and loose with the truth, and you apparently can't see it.

In your first example, you say that foreigners may not vote, "I don't care how long they are here" (or rather, Rush characterizes it that way), and the Mexican constitution, as quoted in full, and not the just the portions which you cherry-pick, clearly provide for naturalization. So, just as is the case in the United States, people cannot vote and participate in politics--unless[/i] they become citizens. So what, that's no big deal, in fact, it's common in so many nations.

You second lie claims that only those who are "naturally born" can own waterfront property. This once again ignores the provision in the Mexican constitution for the naturalization of immigrants.

You didn't even make this tripe up, you really are in no position to defend it.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

if 6 were 9.

It probably is in the new math. Perhaps mystryman could instruct us.

0 Replies

Well,
I can see that trying to get any of you to see the truth is futile.
I posted a link to the entire Mexican Constitution,but you apparently cant be bothered to read it.

Set,
Can non cictzens vote in the US??
No,they cannot.
But,they do have the right to protest politically,dont they?
Non citizens in Mexico do not have that right.
Are you going to argue that?

Are you going to deny the fact that the Mexican Constitution denies non citizens the right to own property along the water or the borders?

Non citizens here in the US can.

So again,you are ignoring what I wrote,and reading what you want.

So I will put it simple enough for a third grader to understand (so go find one to explain it to you,ok).

Illegal immigrants should be treated the same way that their home country treats illegal immigrants.
If they are rounded up and deported in their home country,they get treated that way here.

Our immigration laws should mirror exactly what the home country of the illegals does.
What could be more fair then that?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Our immigration laws should mirror exactly what the home country of the illegals does.
What could be more fair then that?

Actually, the US constitution - following your argumentation - should be the same as the home of the immigrant.
(Your quotes say nothing about illegals but about foreigners, it's the Mexican constituion you quoted and no Mexican immigration law.)

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Well,
I can see that trying to get any of you to see the truth is futile.
I posted a link to the entire Mexican Constitution,but you apparently cant be bothered to read it.

Actually, no. As Setanta pointed out, you copied and pasted the work of someone else as something you came up with ("My immigration laws"). Very intellectually dishonest. Especially when it's commonly accepted that we share our sources.

There's plenty more, but someone else will deal with that, I'm sure.

As for now? For your sake, I'd say its time you Edit: Moderator: Image Removed and move on to another topic. You've crashed and burned hard enough on this one.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So I will put it simple enough for a third grader to understand (so go find one to explain it to you,ok).

That's rich, coming from you. Most third graders i've ever met express themselves in English with much more facility than you demonstrate.

Quote:

Illegal immigrants should be treated the same way that their home country treats illegal immigrants.

Why? Your entire thesis is based on an illicit premise, which is not axiomatic. Do you suggest that the United States should base its laws on emulation of the laws of other nations?

It is is small wonder that this falls flat on its face, precisely because of the illicit premise. And small wonder that you get all tangled up trying to defend it--considering that your just mouting Rush's idiotic thesis, and not one of your own. Do you occasionally have original thoughts, MM?

Quote:

Our immigration laws should mirror exactly what the home country of the illegals does. What could be more fair then that?

What could be more fair than that would be to have laws which reflect the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives, in Congress assembled. Given that people immigrate from literally hundreds of nations, do you suggest that our immigration laws should attempt to mirror the immigration statutes of literally hundreds of countries? Now there's a nightmare proposition.

Not all immigrants here, including not all illegal immigrants, come from Mexico. You might have a refreshing new experience at a2k if you were to actually think before you posted something.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why? Your entire thesis is based on an illicit premise, which is not axiomatic. Do you suggest that the United States should base its laws on emulation of the laws of other nations?

This is rich,coming from you.

There are many on here that supported the USSC basing one of its rulings on foreign law.
Now,you seem to be saying that our laws should NOT be based on foreign laws.

Which is it?
Should our laws be based on foreign law or not?

0 Replies

MM, excellent diversion. 9/10

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

MM, excellent diversion. 9/10

I dunno... seemed pretty transparent to me. I'd give a 6.5/10, tops.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Here in New Mexico it's illegal to be legal. Actually there was quite some controvesy when the US Government granted native americans citizen as quite a large number of native americans found it offensive to be "granted citizenship" in a courtry that was their's to begin with.

I can imagine.

MM, if I was a citizen of a country that bordered on the richest nation in the world, I would want the greatest assets of my country protected from the monies of my neighbors. In this case, I can well see why the Mexican government passed a law prohibiting ownership of waterfront property by foreigners. What is the history of this law? What percentage of the waterfront was being bought up by rich American developers prior to the law being passed. Do you think we should have the right to buy another countries most valuable resources just because we can afford it?

A number of years ago there was significant anti-Japanese sentiment in the US because of the large scale investments that the Japanese were making in US real estate. There was talk of passing laws to establish limits on foreign held property within the US. The Japanese economy tanked and the discussion waned, but it certainly might have become law here as well.

0 Replies

My immigration laws

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know