Not even Mr. Castañeda can stand the
stench of his own hypocrisy.
As documented in Part I & II of this essay, Jorge G. Castañeda and key members of the Mexican government have harshly criticized the United States for its immigration policies and aggressively lobbied for amnesty and liberalization. Two important questions that few people have posed during the immigration debate are: what are Mexico's own immigration policies and how does Mexico treat its own large immigration population? After reading the constitution and the General Law of Population of Mexico, I concluded that in contrast to our own immigration policies, Mexico's policies are rational and firmly based on the principles of sovereignty and the promotion of national interests. In the following paragraphs I will highlight the dramatic contrast that seen between American and Mexican immigration law, which reveal the sheer hypocrisy of the demands that the Mexican government has placed on the United States.
In sharp contrast to the United States, Mexican law and political sentiments clearly prohibits non-citizens from discussing, let alone protesting Mexican law while on Mexican soil. Specifically, Article 33 of the constitution state"Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." In other words, if thousands of documented, let alone undocumented immigrants were to participate in protests, they would be promptly deported. And of course, Mexico would not tolerate American officials interfering in the application of Mexican laws.
The implications of Mr. Castañeda's demands are that interests and opinions of immigrants and foreign nations should be factored into American policies. So, it comes as a surprise that the Mexican constitution unequivocally presents immigration as a phenomena that must be carefully planned and tightly controlled for the benefit of the nation.
Article 32 of the General Law of Population states that the government must conduct demographic studies to determine the volume and composition of immigration that is most beneficial for the economic and social welfare of the Mexico.
Article 34 emphasizes that the government must factor in the professional background and intended place of residence to ensure that immigrants are economically useful for the nation and will not be an economic burden on the state. It also explicitly states that immigrants must have sufficient economic resources to ensure their own economic sustenance and that of the people that of their dependents; in other words, no welfare and social services for non-Mexican citizens.
And most interestingly, Article 37 states that foreigners may be barred from entering the country if their presence upsets the "the equilibrium of the national demographics" and are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," "when they have broken Mexican laws" and when "they are found to not be physically or mentally healthy."
These articles make it quite hypocritical for Mexican officials to so shrilly protest when Americans push for restrictive immigration policies that they believe represent their economic interests, such as Proposition 187 that barred undocumented immigrants from receiving welfare benefits in the state of California. And also it casts a bad light on political commentators like Jorge Ramos who has labelled all Americans who express concerns about massive demographic changes as being "racist and anti-immigrant." Clearly Mexico believes it demographic reality is something that must be controlled by and serve the interest of the nation, yet it demands that the United States accept changes that do not reflect the laws or desires of the nation.
Mr. Castañeda and like minded individuals have harshly criticized the United State's treatment of undocumented immigrants. So, perhaps they have not read Article 123 that states that illegally entering Mexico is a criminal offense that can be punished by up to two years in jail and a $5,000 peso fine and Article 33 of the constitution that grants the government the power to expel any foreigner without due process of the law.
Article 118 mandates a prison term of up to 10 years and a fine of up to $5,000 pesos for all individuals who have been expelled who attempt to re-enter the country without legal permission.
Article 116 clearly states that those who are caught using false documents run the risk of being fined and imprisoned.
Article 119 & 120 states that those who violate the terms of their visa (such as working without a permit) can be fined and imprisoned for up to 6 years.
Immigration activists have protested and initiated law suits against localities that seek to enforce immigration law, so it comes as a surprise that the Article 73 explicitly states that local and municipal police must fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
In regards to equal employment opportunities, the Mexican Constitution bars immigrants from many professions, even if they have obtained citizenship, such as: serving as military officers, airline crews and federal lawmakers, cabinet secretaries,and even clergy members (Article 130).
So, how does Mexico fair in its actual treatment of immigrants? Jose Luis Soberanes, the President of the Mexico’s Center for the National Commission of Human Rights (CNDH) aptly sums it up in the following sentence:
"We demand that they (Americans) treat us (Mexicans) well, and we are incapable of treating Central Americans well."
According to Mr. Soberanes, numerous complaints have been filed against military personnel and Mexican Immigration Authorities (INM) for stealing money, physically and sexually abusing Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans.
So, the question remains - how should we respond to the sheer hypocrisy of Mexican officials who demand that the United States pursue policies that are in sharp contrast to their own? A good starting point would be for the Congress to re-boot the entire immigration debate by adopting each and every one of Mexico's strict immigration laws. This would hold up a mirror to Mexico and completely disarm their criticism of the American immigration policy. The starting point of any debate with Mexico and the American left would be based on the following givens:
Until Mexico liberalizes its own laws and improves the treatment of its large population of undocumented immigrants, there shall be no discussions.
The United States, like Mexico has the right to determine and enforce its laws for the benefit of its own people. No country is obligated to provide jobs, health care or education to non-citizens.
The limited cases of enforcement do not make the United States "anti-immigrant," rather the millions of cases in which the United States does not enforce its laws and provides unparalleled opportunities to immigrants is a testament to the generosity and pro-immigrant spirit of America.
I close this discussion with the following thoughts: my ire does not lie with the Mexican government and especially not with the Mexican people, who like all healthy beings, unabashedly pursue their self interest and sovereignty, in contrast to large segments of the American elite who are indifferent or even hostile to the will and welfare of the American people. So, if anything, we have a lot to learn from Mexico.
http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/1917_Constitution_of_Mexico.html#TitleIChapterIII
http://www.migracioninternacional.com/docum/indice.html?mundo=leypob.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608703/posts
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/060815a.aspx
http://vivirlatino.com/2007/07/23/rights-group-demands-mexico-look-into-abuse-against-central-american-immigrants.php
No comments:
Post a Comment