Mexico fumes at 'hostile' Trump immigration rules as U.S. talks loom

[webfact]

Mexico fumes at 'hostile' Trump immigration rules as U.S. talks loom

By Alexandra Alper and Anahi Rama

REUTERS

 

Mexico's Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray looks on during the 25th Session of the General Conference of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean in Mexico City, Mexico, February 14, 2017. REUTERS/Edgard Garrido

 

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico reacted with anger on Wednesday to what one official called "hostile" new U.S. immigration guidelines as senior Trump administration envoys began arriving in Mexico City for talks on the volatile issue.

 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security unveiled plans on Tuesday to consider almost all illegal immigrants subject to deportation, and will seek to send many of them to Mexico if they entered the United States from there, regardless of nationality.

 

The tension over the timing of the rules mirrors an outcry when President Donald Trump tweeted that Mexico should pay for his planned border wall shortly before Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto was due at a Washington summit in January.

 

Trump, who took office last month, campaigned on a pledge to get tougher on the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, playing on fears of violent crime while promising to build the wall and stop potential terrorists from entering the country.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson landed in Mexico City on Wednesday afternoon. He was due to be joined by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly later for talks the White House said would "walk through" the implementation of Trump's immigration orders.

Kelly signed the guidelines issued by his department on Monday.

 

Mexico's lead negotiator with the Trump administration, Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray, said there was no way Mexico would accept the new rules, which among other things seek to deport non-Mexicans to Mexico.

 

"I want to say clearly and emphatically that the government of Mexico and the Mexican people do not have to accept provisions that one government unilaterally wants to impose on the other," he told reporters at the Foreign Ministry.

 

He said the issue would dominate the talks, taking place on Wednesday and Thursday. Mexico will insist that the United States proves the nationality of any person it wants to deport to Mexico, he said.

 

"We also have control of our borders and we will exercise it fully," he said.

 

Roberto Campa, who heads the human rights department of the Interior Ministry, said the plan to deport non-Mexicans to Mexico was "hostile" and "unacceptable."

 

'PHENOMENAL' RELATIONSHIP

 

White House spokesman Sean Spicer described U.S.-Mexico ties as healthy and robust and said he expected a "great discussion."

 

"I think the relationship with Mexico is phenomenal right now," Spicer told reporters.

 

Homeland Security's guidance to immigration agents is part of a broader border security and immigration enforcement plan in executive orders that the Republican president signed on Jan. 25.

 

In Guatemala on Wednesday, Kelly told Guatemalans the immigration crackdown ordered by Trump meant undocumented immigrants would be caught and sent back quickly, advising them to stay at home.

 

He denied the administration was embarking on mass deportations.

 

Mexico's agenda at the talks on Thursday includes border infrastructure, deportation strategies, Central American migration, narcotics, arms trafficking and terrorism, and the North American Free Trade Agreement, a senior official with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.

 

(Additional reporting by Gabriel Stargardter; Writing by Frank Jack Daniel; Editing by Matthew Lewis and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-23

[trogers]

No point fuming...close all entry and exit points to the US. Actions speak louder than words...

[daveAustin]

Quote

Mexico reacted with anger on Wednesday to what one official called "hostile" new U.S. immigration guidelines as senior Trump administration envoys began arriving in Mexico City for talks on the volatile issue

Why, because they're thinking about repatriating your illegal peoples? Would you not do the same with illegal Americans?

[maoro2013]

Well I guess a lot of the illegals are Mexicans, sounds like this guy doesn't want them back!

[gabruce]

1 hour ago, daveAustin said:

Why, because they're thinking about repatriating your illegal peoples? Would you not do the same with illegal Americans?

I think that in general they don't want any of the illegal immigrants returned to Mexico. They seem to definitely not want non-Mexicans who entered the US from Mexico to be returned to Mexico.

My personal opinion is that returning Mexicans that entered illegally or stayed illegally to Mexico is standard practice and defensible. If some Canadian entered from Mexico and that entry was illegal or if that person stayed illegally - that's a trickier question. Do you send them back to where they came from (Mexico in this example) or to their own country (Canada in this example)? Does it matter whether the Canadian was in Mexico legally (tourist?) or illegally (snuck over the border from Guatemala or boat from Cuba?)? I don't know.

[klauskunkel]

Quote

Mexico fumes at 'hostile' Trump immigration rules as U.S. talks loom

Mexican fumes are volatile, especially the ones from refried beans

[Revolutionary]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. They are illegally in the country. No different to Thailand penalising illegals or overstayers. Start with any that have committed a crime. 

[kamahele]

7 minutes ago, Revolutionary said:

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. They are illegally in the country. No different to Thailand penalising illegals or overstayers. Start with any that have committed a crime. 

Rather than pay the air fare to get these immigrants to their home countries in Central America, this administration wants to return people who are not from Mexico to Mexico. 

[Scott]

16 minutes ago, gabruce said:

I think that in general they don't want any of the illegal immigrants returned to Mexico. They seem to definitely not want non-Mexicans who entered the US from Mexico to be returned to Mexico.

My personal opinion is that returning Mexicans that entered illegally or stayed illegally to Mexico is standard practice and defensible. If some Canadian entered from Mexico and that entry was illegal or if that person stayed illegally - that's a trickier question. Do you send them back to where they came from (Mexico in this example) or to their own country (Canada in this example)? Does it matter whether the Canadian was in Mexico legally (tourist?) or illegally (snuck over the border from Guatemala or boat from Cuba?)? I don't know.

One of the big problems that plague countries with deportation is that it does require that the country to which they are being returned agrees to take them.   If there is proof of citizenship, then it is reasonably easy; if not, then the country of return can refuse.  

 

Countries do not usually refuse their own citizens, but it's not always possible to establish the nationality of the deportee.   In the case you cited, chances are the person could return to Mexico, because their is no visa requirement, but if Mexico refused then the person would have to be deported to Canada, and Canada would need to agree that the person is a citizen.  

[harrry]

Little problem with holding them in a detention centre until they document themselves.  

[darksidedog]

21 minutes ago, Revolutionary said:

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. They are illegally in the country. No different to Thailand penalising illegals or overstayers. Start with any that have committed a crime. 

The fuss is that the US wants to send anyone illegally in the country to Mexico, even if they are not from there.

Thailand will send illegals to their country of origin.

Think of it in this context. If Thailand decided that it would send every person illegally here to the UK, to let them then send those people to their respective countries of origin, do you think the UK would agree?

Of course they wouldn't. Sure, it makes life easy for America. Dump everyone in Mexico and let them have the trouble and expense of sorting it out.

Mexico is absolutely correct in not agreeing with such a ridiculous proposal.

[Scott]

13 minutes ago, harrry said:

Little problem with holding them in a detention centre until they document themselves.  

You cannot hold people in detention unless you have a charge against them and even with a charge, the person is accorded due process and would most likely be released.  

[harrry]

But they can.  They are a threat to the US and have no right to remain there.  They have no permission to remain in the US.  The same as here if you have no permission to remain you are detained at an immigration facility till you deport yourself.

[Scott]

Well, I am not going to get into a pissing contest with the chronically uninformed.   People cannot be held in detention indefinitely. 

 

Once a person steps foot on US soil, they have all the rights accorded by the constitution and one of those is for indefinite detention.  

 

If a person has not committed a crime, other than being undocumented, then they will be released.   Even those who have committed a crime may end up being released.  

 

Just recently,  33 criminals who had served their time were released in AZ.   They have deportation orders, but ICE did not come and get them and they were released.   Maricopa county is not a holding facility for ICE and if ICE does not pick up and re-arrest the person they are released.  

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, trogers said:

No point fuming...close all entry and exit points to the US. Actions speak louder than words...

They are starting to take action.  Could hurt a lot of people if they do this:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/13/news/economy/mexico-trump-us-corn/

Quote

Mexico ready to retaliate by hurting American corn farmers

 

Trade wars are never a good thing.

[craigt3365]

57 minutes ago, harrry said:

But they can.  They are a threat to the US and have no right to remain there.  They have no permission to remain in the US.  The same as here if you have no permission to remain you are detained at an immigration facility till you deport yourself.

All they have to do is prove they would be in danger if returned home.  They'll be granted refugee status and not sent home.

[trogers]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

They are starting to take action.  Could hurt a lot of people if they do this:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/13/news/economy/mexico-trump-us-corn/

 

Trade wars are never a good thing.

Chemotherapy would always hurt...but necessary...

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, darksidedog said:

The fuss is that the US wants to send anyone illegally in the country to Mexico, even if they are not from there.

Thailand will send illegals to their country of origin.

Think of it in this context. If Thailand decided that it would send every person illegally here to the UK, to let them then send those people to their respective countries of origin, do you think the UK would agree?

Of course they wouldn't. Sure, it makes life easy for America. Dump everyone in Mexico and let them have the trouble and expense of sorting it out.

Mexico is absolutely correct in not agreeing with such a ridiculous proposal.

One of the big problems is corruption in the illegal immigration process in Mexico.  Just like here, a few dollars lets you continue on your way.

 

And let's not forget Obama deported more illegals than any other president. 

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-has-president-obama-deported-more-immigrants-any-president-us-history/

 

Quote

 

Why Has President Obama Deported More Immigrants Than Any President in US History?

Since 9/11, immigration has become increasingly tangled with criminal enforcement and national security.

 

Since taking the oath of office, Obama has deported immigrants at a faster rate than any other president in US history, nearly a record 2 million people. On a typical day, there are over 30,000 immigrants imprisoned in the world’s largest immigration detention system.

 

 

There are easier paths to take than the ones recommended by Trump.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, trogers said:

Chemotherapy would always hurt...but necessary...

In this case, it's not needed.  Except in the eyes of Trump and Bannon.

[trogers]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

In this case, it's not needed.  Except in the eyes of Trump and Bannon.

11m illegal immigrants and it is not needed. Waiting for the volume to be 110m?

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, trogers said:

11m illegal immigrants and it is not needed. Waiting for the volume to be 110m?

A trade war will do nothing to help this.  There are lots of ways to deal with this, sadly, congress has blocked many attempts to deal with this problem.  Just like the courts are blocking Trump's attempt at a travel ban.

[trogers]

11 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

A trade war will do nothing to help this.  There are lots of ways to deal with this, sadly, congress has blocked many attempts to deal with this problem.  Just like the courts are blocking Trump's attempt at a travel ban.

The average US citizen cannot afford to throw high powered meals and parties for members of the US Congress...so most of their work are towards requests of lobbyists.

[ddavidovsky]

Problem is that the illegal immigration took place over many years. Repatriation should take place at a similar rate so that the economic strain (for both countries) can be accommodated. Here's one solution: the US to cede a piece of land by the border (they won't miss it) and help establish a new city for the returned immigrants. Nuevo Laredo could become the new Shenzhen. Win-win.

[trogers]

9 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Problem is that the illegal immigration took place over many years. Repatriation should take place at a similar rate so that the economic strain (for both countries) can be accommodated. Here's one solution: the US to cede a piece of land by the border (they won't miss it) and help establish a new city for the returned immigrants. Nuevo Laredo could become the new Shenzhen. Win-win.

I doubt the Hong Kong people were trying hard to be undocumented vistors to mainland China...

[chilli42]

4 hours ago, daveAustin said:

Why, because they're thinking about repatriating your illegal peoples? Would you not do the same with illegal Americans?

I suspect they are not keen on the plan to have non Mexican's shipped to them as well.  Very convenient for the US.

[craigt3365]

44 minutes ago, trogers said:

The average US citizen cannot afford to throw high powered meals and parties for members of the US Congress...so most of their work are towards requests of lobbyists.

And there's one of the big problems!!!

[craigt3365]

45 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Problem is that the illegal immigration took place over many years. Repatriation should take place at a similar rate so that the economic strain (for both countries) can be accommodated. Here's one solution: the US to cede a piece of land by the border (they won't miss it) and help establish a new city for the returned immigrants. Nuevo Laredo could become the new Shenzhen. Win-win.

I doubt a majority in Nuevo Laredo would want to become part of Mexico.  Easier option would be to grant limited stays in the US for purposes of work, study, etc.  Then after a few years, they go home and apply again.  If done properly, and I know that is a big "IF"!, it could work.  Some interesting thoughts on immigration policies.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/24/what-americans-want-to-do-about-illegal-immigration/

Quote

 

Stay or deport? In a Pew Research Center survey conducted in May, a solid majority (72%) of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 76% of independents and 56% of Republicans – say undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay in this country legally if they meet certain requirements. Last year, we asked a follow-up question of those who opposed granting legal status to undocumented immigrants: Should there be a “national law enforcement effort to deport” all immigrants here illegally? Just 17% of the public overall favored such an effort, including about a quarter (27%) of Republicans.

Moreover, in a 2013 survey, 76% of Republicans said that deporting all immigrants in the U.S. illegally was “unrealistic.”

 

 

I like this article.  It lays out what many others say about how to fix illegal immigration. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431012/fixing-illegal-immigration-five-steps

Quote

How to Fix Illegal Immigration in Five Steps without Building a Wall

 

P.S. Illegal immigration from Mexico is down from the peak in 2007. 

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, trogers said:

11m illegal immigrants and it is not needed. Waiting for the volume to be 110m?

It is about 300 m already if you see the native Americans as the original inhabitants.

[kowpot]

That's one way to get Mexico to pay for the wall "Blackmail".  

Tell Mexico that we are sending all the illegals to Mexico whether or not they are Mexican if you don't agree to pay for the wall. 

 

[elgordo38]

Hey all you old timers out there hands up if you have been there before? After all is said and done there will be a joint news conference saying that an amicable agreement was reached by all parties and a picture of everybody smiling and shaking hands.