My immigration laws

Legal capacity to acquire ownership of lands and waters of the Nation shall be governed by the following provisions:

1. 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 thereto; 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.

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?

Quote:

Legal capacity to acquire ownership of lands and waters of the Nation shall be governed by the following provisions:

1. 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 thereto; 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.

I have no problem with this whatsoever. Again, they are the neighbors of the richest nation on the planet and I would see this as a combination of self-preservation and self-protection.

mysteryman wrote:

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?

I'd not even give it a 4/10, guys--it's got strawman written all over it, and it's lurchin' down the street like a scarecrow come undone . . .

MM, i see you continue either not to understand or to ignore that all of the prohibitions which you allege the Mexican constitution to contain on the actions of foreigners in fact refer to non-citizens, and have provisions to lift the disabilities from naturalized citizens.

MM, is see that you have proven unwilling to address the issue that immigrants, legal or not, come from many more countries than simply Mexico.

You gotta expect this kinda think when you let a hopped-up pill-pooper like Rush do your thinkin' for ya . . .

How does that policy apply to Iran and our insistance they stop developing nuclear weapons?

I assert that protectionism via government interventionism is a at best a zero sum game. In essence the only viable from of 'protectionism' is a healthy vigorous competitive economy and strong antitrust.

Chumly wrote:

I assert that protectionism via government interventionism is a at best a zero sum game. In essence the only viable from of 'protectionism' is a healthy vigorous competitive economy and strong antitrust.

The Libertarian side of me doesn't disagree, and yet I have no qualms with the Mexican Constitution reserving the right of land ownership to Mexican citizens. I would have no qualms about Canada incorporating the same protections.

Chumly,
While I am not familiar with the trade policies and agreements currently in effect between the US and Canada,I make no exception.
Whatever trade laws Canada has regarding the US,we use those exact same laws towards them.

mysteryman wrote:

Chumly,
While I am not familiar with the trade policies and agreements currently in effect between the US and Canada,I make no exception.
Whatever trade laws Canada has regarding the US,we use those exact same laws towards them.

Of coarse you don't know the trade laws or you would understand what causes illegal immigration and the reason why the government makes sure they get all the "illegal" labor they can get.

But why find out the truth. It would directly contradict your made up world.

J_B wrote:

Chumly wrote:

I assert that protectionism via government interventionism is a at best a zero sum game. In essence the only viable from of 'protectionism' is a healthy vigorous competitive economy and strong antitrust.

The Libertarian side of me doesn't disagree, and yet I have no qualms with the Mexican Constitution reserving the right of land ownership to Mexican citizens. I would have no qualms about Canada incorporating the same protections.

Would you have a problem if the US passed the same kind of law?
Or what if they made it retroactive?