Immigration Laws of Mexico

[snopes]

We kicked this one around a bit on the old board, but it's still going strong:

--------------------------------------------------------

HARSH YOU SAY??

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no "bad-mouthing" our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.

Harsh, you say ?...


The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of MEXICO

[Mickey Blue]

Eh, ok.. So why should America, the richest and most powerful country in the world, model ourselves after arguably a third world country (I don't truly know what the definition is) that is, in relative to America at least, immersed in poverty?

-MB

1. Maybe they should have special bilingual programs for kids. They have them in China to learn English, why shouldn't Mexico any different.

2. Foreigners have a right to vote once they become a Mexican citizen, it's no different than it is here.

3.

5. The 40,000x rule is if you want to emigrate to Mexico as a permanent citizen. In the US, the rule is 1 million dollars Sec 208(C)(i) of th INA. If minimum wage is 7 dollars an hour in Washington DC, and working 8 hours a day. That's 56 dollars an day. So in the US the minimum required to invest is 18,000x the minimum wage of a worker.

http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm

6. According to this Site, foreigners can own property, just not in their name.

7. In the US, certain political organizations can get you deported and/or stripped of your citizenship. One of them is being a member of the communist party.

8. In the US, the term is a detention facility, although a person at a detention facility is a lot times the same thing.

[TurquoiseGirl]

Does explain then, why people want to leave. Who would want to live in a country like that?

[Canuckistan]

No, no, no, people, you don't get it:

The immigrants must be held accountable for the policies of their government back home! It's so logical!

I can't believe you haven't thought of it sooner!

[Canuckistan]

Here's a posting from last year. No indication as to whether the person is claiming authorship, though.

Originally Posted by songs78

7. In the US, certain political organizations can get you deported and/or stripped of your citizenship. One of them is being a member of the communist party.

Could you provide a cite for this, especially the part about being stripped of your citizenship? All I've been able to find on Google are cites of (1) Communist Party membership preventing you from becoming a citizen, and (2) individual party members being stripped of citizenship under other circumstances. Thanks!

Well, I certainly hope they don't get to be the dominant nation in the North American Union...they are kinda harsh, dude.

Yo hablo espanol de escuela muey anos pasados pero no requerdo muchas palabras....

and that's all I can say!!!

I just got this mass email. Wondering what the official Snope's stance is on it. I imagine it's mixed. I refuted a couple items to the sender. For example, from a study by the Migration Policy Institute:

...Mexico's Constitution prohibits foreigners from owning property on its coasts or borders. However, while foreigners may not own property outright within the restricted region, they can set up a trust (or fideicomiso) with a credit institution, such as a bank. In this arrangement, the credit institution owns the deed to the land, but the foreigner is the beneficiary to the trust for 99 years. He or she may collect any benefits or profits from the use or sale of the land...

Anyway, would love to be able to pass along a complete take by Snopes if possible. (Couldn't find anything at the regular site.)

Thanks.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

And perhaps the difference in laws is a big part of why the USA is so prosperous and Mexico is a third-world country. People can come to this country under our immigration laws and make a fresh start and become fully American - well, not become President, but maybe become governor of a state with an economy as big as all but a few nations. The vast majority of those of us who are adamant about enforcing the immigration laws are just fine with legal immigration and embrace new Americans heartily. This openness to energetic, ambitious spirits has served us well.

Originally Posted by revlow

I just got this mass email. Wondering what the official Snope's stance is on it. I imagine it's mixed. I refuted a couple items to the sender. For example, from a study by the Migration Policy Institute:

...Mexico's Constitution prohibits foreigners from owning property on its coasts or borders. However, while foreigners may not own property outright within the restricted region, they can set up a trust (or fideicomiso) with a credit institution, such as a bank. In this arrangement, the credit institution owns the deed to the land, but the foreigner is the beneficiary to the trust for 99 years. He or she may collect any benefits or profits from the use or sale of the land...

Anyway, would love to be able to pass along a complete take by Snopes if possible. (Couldn't find anything at the regular site.)

Thanks.

That's pretty much how it was explained to me when I was in Baja: you can't actually purchase the land outright, rather you aquire a 99 year lease. I still have the paperwork somewhere although I never actually went through with it.

Originally Posted by Traveler in Black

Could you provide a cite for this, especially the part about being stripped of your citizenship? All I've been able to find on Google are cites of (1) Communist Party membership preventing you from becoming a citizen, and (2) individual party members being stripped of citizenship under other circumstances. Thanks!

According to USConstitution.net

For a natural-born citizen, losing your citizenship is actually quite difficult. The law prohibits the taking of your citizenship against your will, but there are certain actions a citizen can take which are assumed to be a free-will decision that constitutes a voluntary renunciation of the citizenship.
[snip]
The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that may force you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:[the list below is taken directly from the law,rather than from the web site]

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

(2) taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

(3) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

(4) accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

(5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

(6) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war") (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

(7) conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

However,citizenship of a naturalized citizen can be also revoked under these circumstances

8 CFR 340.1 Reopening of a naturalization application by a district director pursuant to section 340(h) of the Act.

(a) Reopening general. On its own motion, the Service may reopen a
naturalization proceeding and revoke naturalization in accordance with
this section, if the Service obtains clear, convincing, and unequivocal
evidence which:
(1) Shows that the Service granted the application by mistake; or
(2) Was not known to the Service Officer during the original
naturalization proceeding; and--
(i) Would have had a material effect on the outcome of the original
naturalization; and
(ii) Would have proven that:
(A) The applicant's application was based on fraud or
misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact; or
(B) The applicant was not, in fact, eligible for naturalization.

The section about fraud or misrepresentation has been used to take actin against certain people who concealed membership in the Nazi party after World War II, the most famous being John Demjanjuk. I found allegations that this also happened to members of the Communist party during the McCarthy era, but did not find a specific case (I didn't hunt very hard, however.)