You are here
Home > Perspective > The ‘problem’ of illegal immigration is not really such a problem

The ‘problem’ of illegal immigration is not really such a problem

We live in a world society and we need to come to some grips with it, My Fellow Gringos …without always going into hysterics like little spoiled USA raised brats. American 'illegals' in Mexico

4 thoughts on “The ‘problem’ of illegal immigration is not really such a problem

  1. MENDACIOUS CRAP

    Just the kind of mendacious crap one would expect from the infantile Left’s very own Rush Limbaugh, a person who has publicly stated that he looks foreward to the invasion of America by the rabble called “the Mexican Army,” and whose idea of “revolution” is apparently a new “Plan of San Diego.”

    One good thing can be said of the outrageously corrupt Mexican state:

    MEXICO’S IMMIGRATION LAW: LET’S TRY IT HERE

    by Dr Michael J. Waller

    Human Events, 05/08/2006

    Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

    That’s too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

    At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
    our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

    * in the country legally;

    * have the means to sustain themselves economically;

    * not destined to be burdens on society;

    * of economic and social benefit to society;

    * of good character and have no criminal records; and

    * contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

    The law also ensures that:

    * immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

    * foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

    * foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

    * foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

    * foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

    * those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

    Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.

    It is an interesting law — and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
    crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

    If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

    We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.

    Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

    * Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

    * Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

    * Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

    * The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

    Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

    * Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

    * A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

    * A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

    Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

    * Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

    * Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

    Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

    * Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

    * Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

    * Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

    Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

    * “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

    * Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

    * Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

    Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

    * A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

    * Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

    All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American
    immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

    Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.

    This article was first posted at CenterforSecurityPolicy.org.

    1. “Mexico’s Glass House,” Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper, April 3, 2006.

    Dr. Waller is vice president for Information Operations at the Center for Security Policy. A journalist and author, he brings expertise in terrorism, intelligence, the former Soviet Union and the Americas. He previously served as a consultant to the U.S. Department of State.

    – Submitted by George Lansbury

  2. BIG BUSINESS AN THE LEFT–AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE
    “Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose first victim is the working class, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same. ” –Alain de Benoist

    “Qui critique le capitalisme en approuvant l’immigration, dont la classe ouvrière est la première victime, ferait mieux de se taire. Qui critique l’immigration en restant muet sur le capitalisme devrait en faire autant. ” –Alain de Benoist

    Immigration: The Reserve Army of Capital

    Occidental Observer, August 23, 2011

    Alain DeBenoist

    (Translated from the French by Tomislav Sunic)

    In 1973, shortly before his death, the French President Georges Pompidou admitted to have opened the floodgates of immigration, at a request of a number of big businessmen, such as Francis Bouygues, who was eager to take advantage of docile and cheap labor devoid of class consciousness and of any tradition of social struggle. This move was meant to exert downward pressure on the wages of French workers, reduce their protesting zeal, and in addition, break up the unity of the labor movement. Big bosses, he said, “always want more.”

    Forty years later nothing has changed. At a time when no political party would dare to ask for further acceleration of the pace of immigration, only big employers seem to be in favor of it — simply because it is in their interest. The only difference is that the affected economic sectors are now more numerous, going beyond the industrial sector and the hotel and catering service sector — now to include once “protected” professions, such as engineers and computer scientists.
    France, as we know, starting with the 19th century, massively reached out to foreign immigrants. The immigrating population was already 800,000 in 1876, only to reach 1.2 million in 1911. French industry was the prime center of attraction for Italian and Belgian immigrants, followed by Polish, Spanish and Portuguese immigrants. “Such immigration, unskilled and non-unionized, allowed employers to evade increasing requirements pertaining to the labor law” (François-Laurent Balssa, « Un choix salarial pour les grandes entreprises » Le Spectacle du monde, Octobre, 2010).

    In 1924, at the initiative of the Committee for Coalmining and big farmers from the Northeast of France, a “general agency for immigration” (Société générale d’immigration) was founded. It opened up employment bureaus in Europe, which operated as suction pumps. In 1931 there were 2.7 million foreigners in France, that is, 6.6 % of the total population. At that time France displayed the highest level of immigration in the world (515 persons on 100,000 inhabitants). “This was a handy way for a large number of big employers to exert downward pressure on wages. … From then on capitalism entered the competition of the workforce by reaching out to the reserve armies of wage earners.”

    In the aftermath of World War II, immigrants began to arrive more and more frequently from Maghreb countries; first from Algeria, then from Morocco. Trucks chartered by large companies (especially in the automobile and construction industry) came by the hundreds to recruit immigrants on the spot. From 1962 to 1974, nearly two million additional immigrants arrived to France of whom 550,000 were recruited by the National Immigration Service (ONI), a state-run agency, yet controlled under the table by big business. Since then, the wave has continued to grow. François-Laurent Balssa notes that

    when a workforce shortage in one sector occurs, out of the two possible choices one must either raise the salary, or one must reach out to foreign labor. Usually it was the latter option that was favored by the National Council of French Employers (CNPF) and as of 1998 by its successor, the Movement of Enterprises (MEDEF). That choice, which bears witness of the desire for short-term benefits, delayed advancement of production tools and industrial innovation. During the same period, however, as the example of Japan demonstrates, the rejection of foreign immigration and favoring of the domestic workforce enabled Japan to achieve its technological revolution, well ahead of most of its Western competitors.

    Big Business and the Left; A Holy Alliance
    At the beginning, immigration was a phenomenon linked to big business. It still continues to be that way. Those who clamor for always more immigration are big companies. This immigration is in accordance with the very spirit of capitalism, which aims at the erasure of borders (« laissez faire, laissez passer »). “While obeying the logic of social dumping, Balssa continues, a “low cost” labor market has thus been created with the “undocumented” and the “low-skilled,” functioning as stopgap “jack of all trades.” Thus, big business has reached its hand to the far-left, the former aiming at dismantling of the welfare state, considered to be too costly, the latter killing off the nation-state considered to be too archaic.” This is the reason why the French Communist Part (PCF) and the French Trade Union (CGT) (which have radically changed since then) had, until 1981, battled against the liberal principle of open borders, in the name of the defense of the working class interests.

    For once a well-inspired Catholic liberal-conservative Philippe Nemo, only confirms these observations:

    In Europe there are people in charge of the economy who dream about bringing to Europe cheap labor. Firstly, to do jobs for which the local workforce is in short supply; secondly, to exert considerable downward pressure on the wages of other workers in Europe. These lobbies, which possess all necessary means to be listened to either by their governments or by the Commission in Brussels, are, generally speaking, both in favor of immigration and Europe’s enlargement — which would considerably facilitate labor migrations. They are right from their point of view — a view of a purely economic logic […] The problem, however, is that one cannot reason about this matter in economic terms only, given that the inflow of the extra-Europe population has also severe sociological consequences. If these capitalists pay little attention to this problem, it is perhaps because they enjoy, by and large, economic benefits from immigration without however themselves suffering from its social setbacks. With the money earned by their companies, whose profitability is ensured in this manner, they can reside in handsome neighborhoods, leaving their less fortunate compatriots to cope on their own with alien population in poor suburban areas. (Philippe Nemo, Le Temps d’y penser, 2010)

    According to official figures, immigrants living in regular households account for 5 million people, which was 8% of the French population in 2008. Children of immigrants, who are direct descendants of one or two immigrants, represent 6.5 million people, which is 11% of the population. The number of illegals is estimated to be between 300,000 to 550,000. (Expulsion of illegal immigrants cost 232 million Euros annually, i.e., 12,000 euro per case). For his part, Jean-Paul Gourevitch, estimates the population of foreign origin living in France in 2009 at 7.7 people million (out of which 3.4 million are from the Maghreb and 2.4 million from sub-Saharan Africa), that is, 12.2% of the metropolitan population. In 2006, the immigrating population accounted for 17% of births in France.

    France is today experiencing migrant settlements, which is a direct consequence of the family reunification policy. However, more than ever before immigrants represent the reserve army of capital.

    In this sense it is amazing to observe how the networks on behalf of the “undocumented,” run by the far-left (which seems to have discovered in immigrants its “substitute proletariat”) serve the interests of big business. Criminal networks, smugglers of people and goods, big business, “human rights” activists, and under- the-table employers — all of them, by virtue of the global free market, have become cheerleaders for the abolition of frontiers.

    For example, it is a revealing fact that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their books Empire and Multitude endorse “world citizenship ” when they call for the removal of borders, which must have as a first goal in developed countries the accelerated settlement of the masses of low-wage Third World workers. The fact that most migrants today owe their displacement to outsourcing, brought about by the endless logic of the global market, and that their displacement is precisely something capitalism strives for in order to fit everybody into the market, and finally, that each territorial attachment could be a part of human motivations — does not bother these two authors at all. On the contrary, they note with satisfaction that “capital itself requires increased mobility of labor as well as continuous migration across national borders.” The world market should constitute, from their point of view, a natural framework for “world citizenship.” The market “requires a smooth space of uncoded and deterritorialized flux,” destined to serve the interests of the “masses”, because “mobility carries a price tag of capital, which means the enhanced desire for liberty.”

    The trouble with such an apology of human displacement, seen as a first condition of “liberating nomadism,” is that it relies on a completely unreal outlook of the specific situation of migrants and displaced people. As Jacques Guigou and Jacques Wajnsztejn write, “Hardt and Negri delude themselves with the capacity of the immigration flows, thought to be a source for new opportunities for capital valuation, as well as the basis for opportunity enhancement for the masses. Yet, migrations signify nothing else but a process of universal competition, whereas migrating has no more emancipating value than staying at home. A “nomadic” person is no more inclined to criticism or to revolt than a sedentary person.” (L’évanescence de la valeur. Une présentation critique du groupe Krisis, 2004).

    “As long as people keep abandoning their families, adds Robert Kurz, and look for work elsewhere, even at the risk of their own lives — only to be ultimately shredded by the treadmill of capitalism — they will be less the heralds of emancipation and more the self-congratulatory agents of the postmodern West. In fact, they only represent its miserable version.” (Robert Kurz, « L’Empire et ses théoriciens », 2003).

    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose first victim is the working class, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.

    Alain de Benoist is a philosopher residing in France. The above article was first published in the quarterly Eléments, “L’immigration; armée de réserve du capital” (April-June 2011, Nr. 139).

    http://www.revue-elements.com/

    –Submitted by George Lansbury

  3. George, your idiotic opinion about there being a supposed Left- Big Business alliance is strikingly similar to how the NAZIS once posited a Jewish Banker-Jewish communist conspiracy supposedly allied against the German people. In short, your opinion is a rehash of that sort of anti semitic tripe, but this time fitted for dopey USA ears. I feel sorry for little dumb fascist minded, narrow minded nationalist YOU.

  4. Am I hearing the voice of Abe Foxman, David Horowitz, and Rush Limbaugh?

    All the same Thought Extinguishers are there.

    “NAZIS!” What next? — “Inappropriate?” “Protocol?” “No Smoking?” ”Buckle up, it’s the law?”

    Neither J. Michael Waller—who is an ethnically Jewish neo-conservative—nor Alain de Benoist, who is a fascist of sorts—and I do not use that term polemically—but an opponent of Judeophobia and racial bigotry, have anything to say about Jews.

    The ideas expressed by Alain de Benoist, the fascist-of-sorts, are not substantially different than those expressed by the late Georges Marchais, the venerable leader of the French Communist Party. Both men rank highly as French patriots and good Europeans.

    Both men are expressing ideas, not merely spouting opinions—for example, clownishly practising Trotskyite onanism in public.

Leave a Reply

Top