Mexico Threatens Suits Over Guard Patrols

[smb]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-sa/2006/may/16/051605885.html

Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants....

"If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station. He did not offer further details....

Huh? Exactly what legal standing would they possibly have?

[MichiganVote]

1. Umm...think its like the same legal standing undocumented workers

think they have. Is this surprising? No. Afterall, Reagan gave them amnesty.

[Nomen Tuum]

64. Vicente Fox should go to the World Court on this

Just the thought of Fox denouncing the US as an "Outlaw Country who refuses to recognize the World Court"...priceless

[MichiganVote]

78. No kidding.

[iconoclastic cat]

2. Do the Republicans have a "To Alienate Before January" list?

And which countries are not on it?

[tanyev]

82. How about Malta?

Have we done anything yet to anger them?

[treestar]

3. There are a couple of International Covenants on Human Rights

In fact there are several, on various subjects. The US code may even provide the jurisdiction through some of the acts that enable the treaties. Though getting into the US to file the suit seems a difficulty unsurpassable. But the Mexican government would have officials legally here on diplomat visas. There would be no grounds to deport them just for filing the suit.

[Critters2]

8. Asking people to stay in their own country

is a human rights violation?

:wtf:

[NorthernSpy]

10. entry into America is a universal human right that only racists...

... would seek to abridge!

America must take in everybody who wants to come here. The more, the merrier. It would be a joy to share this land with three billion more people, even if they happen to enter illegally and in spite of our objections. No would-be immigrant ever has to take no for an answer. No one is illegal, because we have no right to say no to anyone, ever.

[saigon68]

42. They would have to catch the swimmers

[treestar]

46. Straw man. That is not what the issue was.

[Bacchus39]

60. yeah, no kidding

amazing the US is going to be sued because we are going to enforce our own laws.

[MockSwede]

80. Border

We're enforcing a COMMON border. IF Mexico doesn't recognize it as a BORDER - ANNEX MEXICO! Oops, they got upset about that last time - at the Alamo?!

[crikkett]

84. it has occurred to me

That the US has occupied the area from Texas to California for less time than England occupied India.

Indians were expected to learn English - the language of their oppressors.

We all see how that ended.

[genieroze]

83. Other countries say no, all the time.

[treestar]

45. That's not what the potential suit would be about. Read the

main post.

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. I guess if the country you are coming from sucks enough

[MockSwede]

79. NOT

NOT in this country. My people came here legally, they can, too.

[951-Riverside]

15. Well damn (Human Rights eh?) if thats the case I wanna go to Canada

...NO WORK PERMIT, NO VISA, NO QUESTIONS.

[Critters2]

58. And if they try to keep you out

SUE 'EM!!



Damn racist Canucks

[SammyWinstonJack]

71. Yeah, me too!

:silly:

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Two items actually

1.- US Law, posse comitatus. Was talking about this with hubby, retired navy, and we realzied they are in a support role, it is truly skating the fine edge. You arm them they just crossed into law enforcement. They are not allowed to do any law enforcement... blame the civil war for that one.

2.- The myriad of basic civil rights protections these folks have under treaties we have signed and so has Mexico. Does the Geneva Convention ring ANY bells? Do you have any idea how many times I had to file forms under Geneva?

and the third and far less obvoous, Guadalupe Hidalgo

Oh and no I am not a lawyer, but since I did work in EMS along side the border (and for the Red Cross in Mexico) guess what became a hobby of mine? Yes International law.

[crikkett]

5. Naw, Mexico can relax

Cause our National Guards are jest gonna be guards at them detention camps what were jest finished down them parts. That's why they're called 'National Guardsmen' aint it?

(hickup)
:)

[Minnesota Libra]

6. Only in America can you threaten to file lawsuits for something.........

...like breaking the law.:wtf: But Vincente Fox can relax, there won't be any true control of the southern border, so he can enjoy all that money illegal aliens send back to Mexico.:banghead: Only in America.:rofl:

[NorthernSpy]

12. U-S-A -- the S stands for "sucker"

:(

Mexico has the wrong bird on its flag. I suggest replacing the eagle with a cuckoo, a lovely little songbird that gets by in life by laying its eggs in other birds' nests. This practice relieves the cuckoo of the burden of caring for its own. As a symbol, the cuckoo fits the Mexican ruling class to a T.

It's astounding how reluctant to acknowledge this some "progressives" are.

[Minnesota Libra]

18. The ones who choose to ignore the obvious are themselves...........

....no doubt illegal aliens. Why elsewould anyone object to securing our borders?? That's the only explanation that makes any sense at all.

[primavera]

51. Wow, what spectacular ignorance

You talk about securing our borders as if it were some childishly simply thing to do which wasn't being done to your satisfaction on purpose for some mysterious reason. Maybe you should consider the possibility that securing the borders isn't quite as easy as you imagine it. How precisely do you propose to do it? Picture yourself as a Border Patrol agent, you see someone out and about in the desert in the vicinity of the border, what are you going to do? Shoot them on sight? You don't even know who they are. Maybe they're an illegal border crosser, maybe they're an asylum seeker, maybe they're a birdwatcher out looking for Rosy Throated Becards. Owing to pressure from people like you, the Border Patrol already does a lot of pretty seriously scary shit, including throwing children into country jails to mix with general population convicts and accidentally deporting US citizens to Mexico - I'm sure Mexican officials get a big laugh out of that one. How many more human rights violations are you prepared to endorse in order to achieve your precious secure border? Wholesale manslaughter? Well, for you, securing the border may warrant indiscriminately shooting people on sight. Happily, the law isn't on your side in that respect. Securing the border is not an end which justifies shooting people, beating people, illegally detaining people, or any other of the host of human rights abuses you're evidently willing to turn a blind eye to. If National Guard units, whose very presence is already violating Posse Comitatus, open up with machine guns on bordercrossers, for instance, the victims will have standing to sue in US courts and I, even though I'm not an illegal alien, consider it entirely appropriate that they should.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

19. you nailed it

Equally astounding is that there are so few responses to this post! Perhaps this is more "progressive" reluctance... BTW, your cuckoo on the Mex flag reminds me that the shape of the US looks like a chicken with its head cut off... Maine is the neck, Florida and TX are the legs, etc.

on edit: I meant to say so few posts in this thread.

[FreakinDJ]

7. This will breed hate

I can almost hear the racist chanting now

[heartofthesiskiyou]

11. There you go..

Fox is doing a favor for chimpy. Mexico has 11,000 Active military spread across the border with US.

[Bridget Burke]

47. How fascinating!

I'd really like to hear details about the 11,000 Active Mexican Military on El Otro Lado.

[Rex]

9. Going against the Constitution?

Maybe Mexico has decided that we plan to invade it or something. Do they have oil?

[Critters2]

94. Yes, as a matter of fact, they do

but no one benefits from it but a few wealthy families. Then they send poor folks here.

[bluedog]

13. LETS SUE MEXICO !! CITIZENS of US

LETS SUE MEXICO !! CITIZENS of US


sue the government and FOX for allowing their criminals and lower class peoples cross into our country and use our tax payers money to suck off our school health and many social programs.

these people are illegals and WE demand they LEAVE

Any lawyers have the BALLS to take this lawsuit??????

[ProudDad]

40. Probably not cause it ain't true

[High Plains]

76. I hesitate to call people racists, but

buddy, you're getting pretty damned close to the line. "Criminals" and "lower class people"?

You're an idiot and I demand you leave.

[PSPS]

14. After reading some of these responses ...

... I had to check to see what site I'm on! WOW!

[rmgarrette64]

16. Immigration is an odd issue

It appears to split both parties, and does not go along the somewhat comfortable left/right axis. If the debate here appears unusual and acrimonious, I can assure you that it is just as bad in the Republican camp (my husband is strongly right-wing, I hear this stuff a lot.) I don't have a solution or anything more to offer, just the observation...

R. Garrett

[TriMetFan]

37. I agree. Even my own so called

friends have made racial remarks in front of me and not thinking twice about it and I'm an American Hispanic.

[Endangered Specie]

17. You'd think that LARGE numbers of people trying desperatly to leave

a country might suggest to its leaders that they need to FIX IT! :eyes:
Ol Fox needs to focus on some of his domestic 'issues' first.

now here is a frivilous lawsuit, since when can a sovereign nation not protect its own border?

[Charlie Brown]

20. Mexico threatens lawsuits over Guard

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/16/mexico.immigration.ap/index.html

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) -- Mexico warned Tuesday it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops detain migrants on the border and some officials said they fear the crackdown will force illegal crossers into more perilous areas to avoid detection.

"If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said in an interview with a Mexico City radio station.

Mexican officials worry the crackdown will lead to immigrant deaths. Since the U.S. toughened security at crossing spots in Texas and California in 1994, immigrants have flooded Arizona's hard-to-patrol desert and deaths have increased.

Mexican newspapers Tuesday characterized the National Guard plan as a hardening of the U.S. position, and some criticized President Vicente Fox for not taking a stronger stand, though Fox called Bush on Sunday to express his concerns.

[not_nameless]

21. ---

even having border guards "will lead to immigrant deaths," so what should we do, don't have a border at all?
Does Mexico have border guards, especially on their Southern border?

[Inland]

22. "Hardening of the US position"?

Somewhere, somebody got the impression that the US position was that the border was supposed to be fairly porous to Mexicans by agreement, so that any actual effort at enforcement is confrontational.

[acmavm]

23. So, what to do, what to do? Apparently Fox calls the shots at how we

run our borders now.

Out of curiousity, what would be his grounds for a lawsuit? How would this play out in a court of law?

Better yet, how is this going to play out with the republican party?

[madrchsod]

25. it is illegal for the national guard to arrest anyone

unless authorized by the state or federal authorities. will the governors of the border states authorize shoot to kill orders? will they take the responsibility when some innocent gets murdered like the shepard boy in texas? we all know bush will authorize shoot to kill.

[acmavm]

27. If the National Guard can arrest with authorization from state or federal

authorities, where's the confusion? Does anyone not think that they won't get that authorization? Or else, why even bother?

[madrchsod]

24. the national guard can not arrest anyone

they can not fire their weapons... the border guards are really pissed off about the whole pile of bullshit bush dumped them in last night. i listened to the rep from the border guards union on npr and they don`t want the guard, they want more border guards they were promised years ago.

[BrotherBuzz]

26. The additional border guards Bush* scrubbed from the budget?

:shrug:

[truthisfreedom]

28. i'm very curious about this... where can i find info about the guards bush

scrubbed?

[truthisfreedom]

30. found it myself! check it out...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/09/MNGOKB837T1.DTL


Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents
President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force
Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle
Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities."

The White House referred questions about the border agents to the Homeland Security Department.

The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations."

Democrats were unhappy that the proposed budget used the escape clause so soon after the president approved the huge boost in border agents.

"We know we must do more to shore up security along our borders," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, top Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "The president's budget does not even attempt to meet this challenge."

Some Republicans also were displeased.

"This is an area of homeland security that needs to be ramped up in order to increase surveillance and patrols of our nation's vast and often remote borders," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

A Jan. 24 letter signed by leading Republican lawmakers implored the president to fully fund the new law "in order to secure our borders against infiltration by terrorists."

The lead signer was Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader of GOP efforts to toughen immigration laws and anti-terrorism statutes.

[ebayfool]

39. Oooooh - I've been looking for that! TY!

Printer is going to be in overdrive, tonight ... I know a few people I want to be sure to see it! :evilgrin: With their very own personal copies! :rofl:

[BrotherBuzz]

32. Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents

Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents

President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force

Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle

Wednesday, February 9, 2005



Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

<more>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/09/MNGOKB837T1.DTL

[Bridget Burke]

55. The INS is now the ICE.

And part of Homeland Security.

Just like FEMA.

[primavera]

69. And CBP and USCIS and...

... a host other tiny subagencies scattered to the four winds. Oh yeah, that was thinking: improve immigration policy by distributing responsibility for it down to a bazillion itty-bitty departments lost in a mega agency whose primary mandate only touches peripherally on immigration. Smart move. :eyes:

[madrchsod]

36. yes about 10,000 over 5 years

[primavera]

52. Unfortunately, one of the little known provisions of REAL ID...

... is that it grants to the Secretary of Homeland Security, or his/her designated agents, the authority to - and I quote - waive any law deemed, at the sole personal discretion of the Secretary, incompatable with preserving the integrity of the border. I kid you not, that is actually what it says. By that definition, the Secretary of Homeland Security could commit first degree murder and it would be legal if, purely on his/her own personal say so, it was necessary for the preservation of border integrity.

Mind you, I can't for an instant imagining such blanket authority surviving judicial review, but, for the time being, it's law and provides DHS with authority to get away, quite literally, with murder, if that's what it wants to do.

[Sgent]

29. Excuse me

but what kind of lawsuit can Mexico file? Foriegn policy and armed services deployments are almost solely in the executive branch -- even congress is limited other than approving treaties.

I'm not even sure that a court would hear a treaty violation filed in a federal court...

[Robbien]

31. International Court. The US is using military force against

the citizens of a non-combative nation.

Sounds good to me.

[adriennui]

33. but these are people who are entering our country illegally

once they're on our side of the border they're subject to our laws. BTW, the nat'l guard will be used for office jobs. i do believe most would rather be stationed near la frontera than in that iraqi hellhole.

[Robbien]

34. A country is supposed to use policing agencies for immigrants

not the military. Using the military against citizens of another country is against International treaties.

[Pierzin]

35. If Anyone listens to Thom Hartmann

It is illegal to enter Mexico illegally and remain as a resident, and they can imprison you and fine you. I forget the details, but there it is.

I don't know how I feel about that, but once again, there it is. I agree with Randi, employers should be fined. Problem solved. Pay the prevailing wage.
Everybody deserves more than being a "temporary worker", no matter who or where they come from. Rebuild New Orleans, etc. For details, see Randis site.

[TriMetFan]

38. That would be to easy.

What a lot of people don't want to get is that the companies that hire these undocumented worker are doing it for the cheap labor. American companies don't care about American people. They only care about the so called "mighty dollar":sarcasm: . And our Government is not helping to put a stop on this.

[saigon68]

41. These companies donate millions to the RePukes

To keep them in power

And the wages low.

[primavera]

56. That's nothing to the billions they collect from American consumers...

... who are only too happy to turn a blind eye to a company's unscrupulous labor practices if it means they can get that pair of jeans for $3! We're never ones to turn down a bargain, after all!

[saigon68]

61. So True Kevin

I see guys in union jackets in the shopping center where WalMart is located. Thunion guys are atronizing Walmart. I won't give those Walmart mother fuckers a dime

[Phx_Dem]

54. It's not that simple

I don't doubt that there are US companies hiring undoc. workers on purpose, but the vast majority who do are not doing it on purpose. They fill out the Federal I-9 like they are required, but a lot of IDs are fake. Moreover, the SSA does not check SS#s that are submitted on the I-9, so the employer never knows if the SS card is real.

[nolabels]

59. Ah, but yes it is

A lot of people just don't get it and or don't want to. The corporate news media is a joke and people who feel the need to blame others with different complexions will be deserving everything that comes their way. The people in Mexico know their government is corrupt just like we know the one in the USA is corrupt. As for an employer knowing about an employee, it's called a background check. The cue is to blame the government, that's easy enough but there are other things to evaluate.

The government encourages the hire of undocumented in many ways but the onus is on the employer and their business to do the checking. Hiring somebody with no experience you are still able to ask for references find out a few things about person before they are hired. The excuse that the employer could not of really investigated if the person was legal to work in the USA is just another lame excuse everybody has been brainwashed to accept in greasing the wheels of business.

Just like any other type of crime, the parties with highest offense count are usually the dealers and instigators of the crime. I would say the shoe fits and that is why they are wearing it.

[Phx_Dem]

65. I hire people all the time

I fill out the required forms, no more no less. There are very good legal reasons for this.

Maybe you did not understand what I was saying, the Social Security Admin. computer system does not check social security numbers that are submitted by employers using the federal I-9 form. What don't you understand about that? How is the employer responsible for that?

[nolabels]

66. Is this like a straw man debate?

My folks ran multiple small businesses through the years (some of which I helped with). This thing of doing a little background check was quite easy a few years ago. Today it looks like it is even easier.


http://www.civilrecords.org/?hop=dtective

When the application says give three personal references with phone numbers where they can be reached at, what does that really mean :shrug:

[Phx_Dem]

68. what do references

have to do with having documentation to work? Have you taken a look at the federal I-9?

This is what I originally responded to:
I don't know how I feel about that, but once again, there it is. I agree with Randi, employers should be fined. Problem solved. Pay the prevailing wage.

[nolabels]

72. So what you are saying as long as you have the excuse........

It's not enough to agree with anybody but to see for yourself. The small businesses are at a major disadvantage no matter which way they turn. Big business relies on circling the wagon among each other to freeze out the little guy. The key to unlocking the puzzle has to do with the dysfunctional government we now have, on this issue and so many more. The government made the mess for most of us with the crooked laws they enacted and now we, the growing number of disadvantaged will have rise up to make it change.


It's easy to point out the federal governments idea how to get away with having (willful) ignorance of the situation just check this out >

(snip)
What happens if I properly complete a Form I-9 and the ICE discovers that my employee is not actually authorized to work?
You cannot be charged with a verification violation; however, you cannot knowingly continue to employ this individual. You will have a good faith defense against the imposition of employer sanctions penalties for knowingly hiring an unauthorized alien unless the government can prove you had actual knowledge of the unauthorized status of the employee.

What is my responsibility concerning the authenticity of document(s) presented to me?
You must examine the document(s) and, if they reasonably appear on their face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them, you must accept them. To do otherwise could be an unfair immigration-related employment practice. If a document does not reasonably appear on its face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting it, you must not accept it. You may contact your local ICE office for assistance. To get the address and telephone number of the ICE office nearest you, please click the ICE district office directory.
(snip)
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/EEV.htm

They want them to come here and they want them to have no paperwork, they want slave labor and they want it cheap. I have no beef with any of the victims only with those that make the policies

[Phx_Dem]

73. I don't disagree that big business wants cheap labor

I'm just saying that there are processes in place (like the I-9) that are designed to ensure that people hired have the right to work in the US. The SSA is failing us in this regard.

As for calling it a excuse, if the employer made a good faith effort to check IDs then what's the problem?

You know some of these IDs are virtually indistinguishable from the real thing, recently in Phoenix here the authorities raided a house where they found 50,000 blank DLs. These are REAL DLs that were stolen from DMV. If I accept one of these DLs as ID, should I (the employer) be punished?

[nolabels]

74. Really what I was getting at is it is all just a bunch of lame excuses

Business is just doing business and is not serious about obeying any laws because government is not serious about enforcing them. I don't feel threatened by any other workers, undocumented or not. I also am sure that most (majority of them latino) at my work would say the same.

Everybody else is doing it, why can't I? That's the world we now live in and you and me are both a part of it.

The thing is I was just trying to point out is that enforcement is possible but probably impractical and they, the government, is not really serious about any of it, it's all just a political game.

[Phx_Dem]

75. I get you--your right it is a political game...

too bad no one asked us if we want to play.

[Igel]

85. There's a side I ran into.

I was the I-9 'master' and did the document checking for a small business.

We did in-house background checks. The general rule was that if nothing bad turned up and the qualifications seemed appropriate, we'd hire the person. Many 18- or 20-year-olds have minimal records; and if they say they recently got naturalized, or just finished school, we didn't delve into their backgrounds. My employer was an ardent dem that wanted to give people a break. Great backgrounds weren't needed.

Some hires were undoubtedly legal. Some were undoubtedly illegal.

I suspect most of the illegal hires were brown-skinned. If I asked for additional documentation from them, I had to ask for documentation from all employees. Otherwise I was being *racist* on the face of it. The documentation for the I-9 isn't really all that hard to forge, and it's even fairly easy to illegally acquire authentic original documents.

So, because the government couldn't be bothered to violate the privacy of Americans to set up a database of who could work; because the government couldn't be bothered to allow the SSA to submit mismatches to INS (or whatever it's called now); because the government didn't authorize the SSA to impose penalties on employers that did not have valid matches between SSNs and names; and because employers aren't allowed to act on suspicions, they have to treat everybody the same, probabilities and suspicions be damned ... it would mean the small business I was in would either have to go to greater extents to enforce immigration policy, or incur greater expenses in hiring somebody to go to those extents for us.

Even if none of the employees actually turned out to be illegal.

I note that the Senate bill apparently would (eventually ... in our dreams) set up such a database; that should be entertaining to watch the legal wrangling and logistical nightmares--it should have been done 20 years ago.

[primavera]

90. Exactly, it's called employment discrimination

And it's against the law, at least for the moment. Given the mood these days, it won't surprise me much if we disband that law and encourage employers to deny employment to anyone with brown skin, but, for the time being, that's still against the law. Employers are required to complete the I-9, they are not required - indeed are not allowed - to exercise their untrained, unreviewable, personal opinions on who they happen to think might or might not be lawfully present, since most employers hae not received years of training in immigration law and fraudulent document detection, so cannot be reasonably expected to make potentially complex determinations about who is and who is not lawfully present.

There is a verification system known as the Basic Pilot program which allows employers to check the employment eligibility of prospective hires by going online and feeding info into a government website and then (hopefully) getting a more or less instantaneous confirmation or rejection. The Basic Pilot (as the name indicates) has been an experiemental pilot program being tested on a limited basis for several years now. Several other pilot programs were tried and they failed miserably for one unanticipated reason or another, but the Basic Pilot program we have now seems to work tolerably well, it's not perfect, but it's pretty good, and it was consequently approved last year for nation-wide use to anyone interested. It remains a voluntary program and, having only recently been approved for national consumption, there's been very little publicity and consequently not very many people know about it, so the number of employers participating remains pretty small. But almost all of the proposed immigration reform bills contain language making it comulsory for all employers within a varying number of years, depending upon the bill. So, rest assured, you will see more of it in the future.

[nolabels]

93. SSN # is our de facto national identity modus

:rant:

It's the way people live and produce their livelihood. The situation we all find ourselves is in effect a result of the need for efficiency (some say from the result of needing to satiate the greed). We can't go back but we could go ahead if a common consensus is reached. John Lennon was way ahead of his time in his thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_(song)

The boondoggle of building a wall or fence to keep people out will be about as effective (if it ever gets built) as abstinence training to prevent teenage pregnancy. The simple idea of the GOP dropping to an even smaller minority of the population in the country is the impetus. Scratching lines to a more noticeable point to shore a base is just more hypocrisy and unworkable policy. The 'either or' way of thinking is what they want to impress on the population.

Asking why is it okay for corporations to do the guest foreign worker import thing and screw over the already well trained workers here and then also help out other corporations export other jobs to other nations like china with taxpayer money is beyond my thinking of anything logical. The simple answer is government works for corporations and moneyed lobbyist they whore themselves out to. The upper tiers of this government don't give a rat's ass what is happening to the common joe as long as the corporate media that owns them don't make them look.

There will prices to pay for our current corrupt office holders in government and the only thing we don't know is how the tricky thing named karma will carry it out.

[burrowowl]

43. Mexico gets nervous when U$ troops are at the border

General Pershing got his training by running into Mexico.
In 1910, why my Grandfather(US citizen married to a Mexican) took his family out of Mexico and back to El Paso, the U$ sent the Marines over the border at Arizona to kill disgruntled Indians because they struck against American Smelting and Refining. This is only one incidence. Read Zinn's: A People's History of the United States. And Marine General Smedly Butler.

[Doctor Venmkan]

44. But Bu$h himself already SAID...

The NG WOULD NOT BE ACTING AS BORDER CONTROL AGENTS! Just lackeys and peons.

The NG would be insulted, if Iraq wasn't the only other option, I bet...

I too say we should file a counter-suit...NOW...against El Presidente Fox. If he can bitch about how we run things on our non-existent border, we can bitch about him letting his country become such a sewer for the average joe that they'd rather risk their life to come over here and become a slave for big business!

[Bridget Burke]

48. So file the suit.

I'm sure some of the participants on this thread will GLADLY send you money.

(You're awfully eager to believe that Bushie would never tell a lie.)

[Doctor Venmkan]

81. The only reason I feel Bushie IS telling the truth...

Bush loves big business. Big business loves workers that it can treat as subhumans. If the NG starts mowing down illegal immigrants at the border, then far fewer cheap, expendable employees!

I could be wrong, but if W hasn't had the cajones to actually secure the border before NOW, despite it being something that many of the base WANT.....!

[jerry611]

49. Mexico needs to re-read the treaty they signed....

According to the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo

"Each of the contracting parties reserves to itself the entire right to fortify whatever point within its territory it may judge proper so to fortify for its security"
-Article 16

[Bridget Burke]

53. The USA should have read Article VIII in the first place....

Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.

Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.

In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.

www.azteca.net/aztec/guadhida.html

[smb]

57. Huh?

WTF does a provision concerning the status of people who already lived and/or owned property in the Southwest in 1848 have to do with people sneaking across the border today?

[BooScout]

70. Not a damned thing. n/t

[Bridget Burke]

91. The US broke that part of the treaty....

Many "Mexicans" on this side of the Border lost their lands.

So--why should another article on that ancient piece of paper have any bearing?

[Critters2]

95. One of the articles is clearly contemporaneous to its signing

(the one you cited). The other is clearly valid in perpetuity. It's perfectly clear.

[Bridget Burke]

97. Perfectly clear?

How are you doing, "ministering" to the Union workers?

[classysassy]

88. Treaties

that are signed with a gun in your back are not legit.

[jayfish]

50. Mexico Has More Guts Than The Democratic Party. -NT-

Jay

[slackmaster]

62. They would have exactly zero legal standing IMO

It's none of their business what we do with our NG on our own soil.

[Acadia Blue]

63. Fo;x stop oppressing your people! you fascist pig. Do you have the

"afraid to go to Vietnam" pres of the US by the wallet? What agreement do you two corrupt oligarchs have?

[Xenotime]

67. This will get out of hand....

You are going to see murders along the border and then Mexico is going to go ape.

[johnhannahthree]

86. How?

As pathetic, embarrassing and desperate as the Bush "plan" is, I can´t imagine what legal standing they would have.

[earth mom]

87. What a joke! If Mexico really cared about the immigrants

they would give them jobs-IN MEXICO. The only thing they are "protecting" is the ability for their poor to get over here and get out of their hair. What a farce! :eyes:

Now, that being said, I want to add that I don't think the National Guard presence is appropriate. I believe that business that hire illegals and exploit them for their own selfish gain should be fined BIG BIG BIG time! IMO, that is the ONLY way that this thing is going to end. Otherwise, it's just a b.s. show put on by Bush Co to impress his base. :puke:

[johnhannahthree]

89. yep

You are correct on both points. Money sent home from immigrants in the US (both legal and illegal) is right up there with tourism and oil as a source of outside revenue for Mexico. The government (Mexican) has no desire to stop the migration - in fact, they have every reason to wish it to continue.

Near my home (in Guanajuato State) there are villages with no male residents other than children and the elderly.

And back in the States, there is no desire to address the demand for cheap labor. (See my post Blood, Money and Flowers) in the Editorials and Others.

[Critters2]

96. Get over here, get out of their hair, and send money home

1/2 of the Mexican economy is money sent there by ex-pats. That's what's makin' 'em so nervous.

[plasticsundance]

92. Ah ... I see some Americans are hurting from growing pains

There will be a global community with no borders. It is coming. Building walls will not work. As more offshoring becomes vogue, even US citizens will look to other nations for jobs. It is already happening in the case of those US citizens seeking jobs in India.

It's time to grow up America. Everything is actually going to plan. You think it makes no sense, because you fail to see the greater picture. Go and frustrate yourself with your subtle xenophobic ramblings born out of a lack of emotional intelligence, if you like. It will profit you nothing.

Now, why don't you just take it easy Group Captain. And please make me a drink of grain alcohol and rain water, and help yourself to whatever you'd like.

- Ripper in Dr. Strangelove
-