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

[Revolutionary]

From reading the article Trump is not saying he will deport them all to Mexico. However if they have entered the U.S. Illegally from Mexico , regardless of nationality, he will return them to the country from which they entered illegally. So all he is doing is returning them to a country that allowed them entry. Seems fair to me. Then let that country deal with their immigration issues. 

[LazySlipper]

6 hours ago, maoro2013 said:

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

My my... In a very short sentence you have summarized the truth that I had never considered and pointed out a fact that no one seems to want to discuss. Everyone is busy finding emotional loopholes but damn man! You got it right I believe.

[Jingthing]

Deporting Mexicans to Mexico. Fair.

Deporting non-Mexicans to Mexico. An outrageous act of bullying aggression.

Would it help for Mexico to take this complaint to the U.N.?

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Jingthing

[rijb]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

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.  

 

 

 

Indefinite detention applies to non-citizens ordered removed from the United States whose countries refuse to accept them or who have no country because they are stateless. INS officials often refer to these individuals as "lifers." This reflects the current INS policy of detaining indefinitely non-citizens ordered removed, even if there is virtually no chance they will actually be removed. "Lifers" come from countries such as Laos, Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, Iran, and the former Soviet Union.

 

https://www.aclu.org/other/analysis-immigration-detention-policies

[rijb]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Deporting Mexicans to Mexico. Fair.

Deporting non-Mexicans to Mexico. An outrageous act of bullying aggression.

Would it help for Mexico to take this complaint to the U.N.?

 

When and where has this happened?  

[anotheruser]

19 minutes ago, rijb said:

When and where has this happened?  

 

It hasn't. It is a proposal being considered because Mexico let's illegals have free reign of their territory and doesn't lift a finger to arrest them as they know they are going to enter the USA. They come from Central America mostly. 

Edited February 23, 2017 by anotheruser

[Shaunduhpostman]

To my lazy armchair idiot's mind, on a simplistic level it makes sense that A country should be allowed to ask foreigners to fulfill certain requirements if they want to come in and stay. If people don't follow the laws and they are caught they should be sent back, end of story.

 

But the problem I have is that Trump seems to lay the blame only at the feet of the so-called trespassers. He does not want to go after the businesses that are luring  "illegals" over to come and work. So basically his idea could have the effect of making "illegals" more vulnerable while their employers continue only being subject to the the current ineffective programs and/or enforcement of laws against hiring illegals and thus have more of a leg up than they do now. I would also guess that there is also undoubtedly much corruption with immigration being paid off for favors or whatever it is, so why isn't corruption ever mentioned as a contributor to the problem. So, it seems to me that the effect of Trump's anti-Mexican campaign is basically to give the employers more leverage to say to workers "either you work at  this reduced rate or else I'll make an anonymous call to immigration and you'll be sent back pronto and I'll get someone who will acquiesce,"  and by that get  more willing to work for less. Over the long term then, this would seem to have the effect of making corporations hungrier for these kinds ever cheaper more maleable and expendable workers whose wages can be cut in a jiffy and thus increase the problem in the long term. Ways around Trump's wall etc will easily and quickly found and I would expect the problem of "illegals" will become exponentially worse.

 

They need to find a way to also have it make no economic sense to hire illegals if they are sincere about tackling their own self-defined "problem" of illegal immigration. But then I suppose, going after businesses for the practice of hiring illegals is not as sexy or reality show worthy  as say, chasing Mexicans down, stun gunning the varmits and hog tying them and shipping them back to Mexico would be, it just isn't as entertaining to the electroate to try and find effective solutions that don't cause unnecessary harm to people, some of  whom have already suffered as a result  of  the US's own NAFTA trade policies and due to an inability to make a living as farmers or a decent wage as post-NAFTA factory workers in Mexico find that it makes more sense to try and hop the fence and see if things don't improve trying to make do in the USA.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Shaunduhpostman

[anotheruser]

It sounds like if the wall is ever built it will come down to the USA pretty much just throwing people back over the wall once caught. On the other side Mexico is giving or renting out ladders to let all the Central Americans through to the USA because they don't want them either. 

 

Meanwhile on the Canadian border the USA border patrol has to pretend to try to catch people coming just short and they escape to Canada and "freedom".

 

The problem that Mexico has and why the USA is taking this stance is because Mexico refuses to police their side of the wall at all. If the thought of the USA putting people in a catapult and throwing them over the wall is aggressive, then Mexico's ultimate inaction is the ultimate act of passive aggression. 

 

In the USA if the border control encounters illegals moving towards Canada they are instructed to detain them if they can. As much as people cheer and hope they get away legally we do our duty to detain them while on US soil. 

 

So if Mexico doesn't want a wall or the USA to simply dump people over it they need to show they are enforcing the border themselves. An example is a country like the Philippines will restrict their citizens from leaving the country if they know they are doing so with the sole intent of working illegally or committing a crime.

 

Mexico can no longer act like a victim of USA bullying when they are pretty much encouraging the security problems on the border. 

 

The catch and release catapult scenario is amusing. 3 2 1 adios amigo! 

Edited February 23, 2017 by anotheruser

[rijb]

48 minutes ago, Shaunduhpostman said:

To my lazy armchair idiot's mind, on a simplistic level it makes sense that A country should be allowed to ask foreigners to fulfill certain requirements if they want to come in and stay. If people don't follow the laws and they are caught they should be sent back, end of story.

 

But the problem I have is that Trump seems to lay the blame only at the feet of the so-called trespassers. He does not want to go after the businesses that are luring  "illegals" over to come and work. So basically his idea could have the effect of making "illegals" more vulnerable while their employers continue only being subject to the the current ineffective programs and/or enforcement of laws against hiring illegals and thus have more of a leg up than they do now. I would also guess that there is also undoubtedly much corruption with immigration being paid off for favors or whatever it is, so why isn't corruption ever mentioned as a contributor to the problem. So, it seems to me that the effect of Trump's anti-Mexican campaign is basically to give the employers more leverage to say to workers "either you work at  this reduced rate or else I'll make an anonymous call to immigration and you'll be sent back pronto and I'll get someone who will acquiesce,"  and by that get  more willing to work for less. Over the long term then, this would seem to have the effect of making corporations hungrier for these kinds ever cheaper more maleable and expendable workers whose wages can be cut in a jiffy and thus increase the problem in the long term. Ways around Trump's wall etc will easily and quickly found and I would expect the problem of "illegals" will become exponentially worse.

 

They need to find a way to also have it make no economic sense to hire illegals if they are sincere about tackling their own self-defined "problem" of illegal immigration. But then I suppose, going after businesses for the practice of hiring illegals is not as sexy or reality show worthy  as say, chasing Mexicans down, stun gunning the varmits and hog tying them and shipping them back to Mexico would be, it just isn't as entertaining to the electroate to try and find effective solutions that don't cause unnecessary harm to people, some of  whom have already suffered as a result  of  the US's own NAFTA trade policies and due to an inability to make a living as farmers or a decent wage as post-NAFTA factory workers in Mexico find that it makes more sense to try and hop the fence and see if things don't improve trying to make do in the USA.

Finally!  Someone that knows what they're talking about.  These are the 'real' issues.  You can bet the pigs in Congress are complicit in this.

 

The scare mongering and Trump insults are getting old, add no value, and just stupid.

[Scott]

3 hours ago, rijb said:

Indefinite detention applies to non-citizens ordered removed from the United States whose countries refuse to accept them or who have no country because they are stateless. INS officials often refer to these individuals as "lifers." This reflects the current INS policy of detaining indefinitely non-citizens ordered removed, even if there is virtually no chance they will actually be removed. "Lifers" come from countries such as Laos, Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, Iran, and the former Soviet Union.

 

https://www.aclu.org/other/analysis-immigration-detention-policies

The article is talking about people who have gone through the legal system and also have been charged with felonies.   The majority of undocumented people have not served time for a felony offense. 

 

As it now stands, it is a huge burden for local jails to hold undocumented aliens when there is no other charge.  In part, that is what happened in AZ.   The people had served their time and were up for release.   ICE was responsible for their deportation and their detention until they were deported.  

 

As your articles points out, even with some rather serious situations, the courts have not favored indefinite detention.  

[jimmybkk]

9 hours ago, Scott said:

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.  

 

 

 

 

"Well, I am not going to get into a pissing contest with the chronically uninformed." Bit unnecessarily blunt and inflammatory wasn't it? Particularly when your were subsequently proved wrong. You do know what "indefinitely" means, right...?

 

[anotheruser]

Just now, jimmybkk said:

 

"Well, I am not going to get into a pissing contest with the chronically uninformed." Bit unnecessarily blunt and inflammatory wasn't it? Particularly when your were subsequently proved wrong. You do know what "indefinitely" means, right...?

 

Thought the same thing. Normally admin on sites take a more reserved approach.

[Scott]

5 minutes ago, jimmybkk said:

 

"Well, I am not going to get into a pissing contest with the chronically uninformed." Bit unnecessarily blunt and inflammatory wasn't it? Particularly when your were subsequently proved wrong. You do know what "indefinitely" means, right...?

 

Some of these issues have been brought up before.   If you read up on indefinite detention, you will find the Courts disagree with it and it's limited use is for those who have committed felony offenses.  

 

Oh, and I have dealt with people who were kept in indefinite detention.   They were CIA operatives from Iraq who were sent to Guam for screening  but because of Crimes against humanity (such as genocide), were inadmissible for resettlement in the US.  They were held in detention in Guam.   

 

The issue of detaining undocumented persons falls to ICE.   The state and local jails and police forces do not have the facilities or the funds to do ICE's job.    Local law enforcement can enter into agreements with ICE.   Many places are reluctant to do so since holding undocumented people will mean that they don't have the facilities for people who have been arrested for serious felony charges.  

 

[Gary A]

Why is there a big question about illegals in the US? Why should the US be so different from other countries? If I come into Thailand illegally across  one of the unprotected borders, what happens if I get caught? I don't hear anyone complaining that I got put in jail and then deported. Just because the bleeding heart politicians say how unfair it is in the US, is it really unfair if you compare it to other countries?  In some countries you would be shot.

[connda]

Mexico never talks about it's own immigration rules that are harsher then the United States immigration rules.  Funny that, 'eh?

[anotheruser]

1 minute ago, connda said:

Mexico never talks about it's own immigration rules that are harsher then the United States immigration rules.  Funny that, 'eh?

 

Imagine all the American expats in Mexico refused to renew visas and started protesting and burning flags and effigies of their president. Than wanted access to health care, etc etc etc. 

 

They wouldn't dare do this though because they know Mexico wouldn't tolerate this. I wish somebody would plant this seed in Trump so he could start demanding reciprocity in addition to the rest of it. 

 

No hope there though the USA government cares about the expat American about as much as an illegal immigrant and in many ways a lot less.

[darksidedog]

48 minutes ago, Gary A said:

Why is there a big question about illegals in the US? Why should the US be so different from other countries? If I come into Thailand illegally across  one of the unprotected borders, what happens if I get caught? I don't hear anyone complaining that I got put in jail and then deported. Just because the bleeding heart politicians say how unfair it is in the US, is it really unfair if you compare it to other countries?  In some countries you would be shot.

How about if your parents came here illegally and you were subsequently born here. Grew up here, went to school here, then University for your degree.

You get a job, start paying taxes and then get deported for being "illegal."

Would you accept that happily? Or would you complain? Or maybe you think that is fair?

That is what is being talked about here.

What would you do when you were sent to a country you had never set foot in, in your life?

Where you know no one, and have no relatives or friends and maybe don't even speak the language?

Do you still think this is a fair policy?

Edited February 23, 2017 by darksidedog

[darksidedog]

11 hours 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.

Every one of the 11 Million people who have sneaked into America over the last 20-30 years and all their families and children are a Threat?

Seriously? To Who? Children who were born there, and know no other place are a threat?

Did you think your comment through?

Immigrants, which incidentally is what built America, go there looking for a better life. Exactly what the Pilgrim Fathers did so may years ago. If they arrived today they would be thrown in jail and sent home!

Trump and his right wing fascists would have ignorant people confuse these generally honest, hard working people with terrorists, who are an entirely different animal.

Popular policy with the ill educated Redneck "They're takin our jobs." voters, but in reality, the overall majority of the 11 Million present absolutely no threat to America.

Many of them take the shitty low paid jobs the average American won't do.

So fine, deport them all and then wonder why you have no nannies for your kids and your garbage hasn't been collected for three weeks.

You try to have the rats feasting on youir garbage eradicated, but the pest control company has no staff. They all got deported!

These things should be thought through properly, which is not happening.

Knee jerk reaction by someone out of their depth, desperate for approval ratings.

[Ulic]

Simple, open Thai style detention center (not jail) and give the detainees a choice. Quick deportation or be held until the full process is followed and then deported. As for countries that do not provide travel documents (passport, or other) within one month of a US government request do not provide travel visas for that country for its government officials or wealthy citizens to enter the US.  The US just wants to enforce the law of the land in respect to illegal migrants in the US. Of course the big hammer is to outlaw/tax remittances. Mexico's biggest foreign income earner.

[anotheruser]

52 minutes ago, Ulic said:

Simple, open Thai style detention center (not jail) and give the detainees a choice. Quick deportation or be held until the full process is followed and then deported. As for countries that do not provide travel documents (passport, or other) within one month of a US government request do not provide travel visas for that country for its government officials or wealthy citizens to enter the US.  The US just wants to enforce the law of the land in respect to illegal migrants in the US.  Of course the big hammer is to outlaw/tax remittances. Mexico's biggest foreign income earner.

Make parts of the wall a few hundred meters away from the border that are open to Mexico but closed on three sides. Release the problems into that area so they are still technically in the 'USA and can leave of their own accord if they so wish to. 

 

Provide nothing inside of that area and they can leave of their own free accord. Anybody on the Mexican side of the wall which is 100% with in the USA is arrested for aiding and abetting. 

 

Deportation is no longer necessary they can wait in the grey area, regardless of passports or where to deport them to.  It is American soil.

[Scott]

All kinds of things are simple, provided that you ignore the constitution and the protections that it guarantees.  

 

--Not everyone picked up turns out to be an undocumented immigrant.   Some are found to be US citizens or Permanent Residents, but at the time of their detention, they were unable to prove it.    This has been the subject of some court challenges because the detention was related to racial profiling.   

 

--People who are otherwise not charged with a criminal offense can voluntarily repatriate themselves.  It's not unlike Thailand.   You can be assured that any Mexican citizen who shows up at the border to leave, will not be detained provided there are no other legal charges.  

 

--People may enter the US legally, but the circumstances of their right to stay may change.   If, for example, the US citizen spouse (or Permanent Resident) dies, then the surviving spouse's eligibility to remain the US will change.   They may very well be allowed to remain, but their status will have to change.    This requires the permission and a determination by Immigration.   In some instances, there are US citizen minor children in the mix.  

 

So, there is a need to go through the legal processes of determining whether a person has the right to remain in the US.  

 

 

[boomerangutang]

22 hours ago, trogers said:

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

How many cars come and go over that border each day?  Probably thousands.  I'd guess roughly half are Americans.  Oh, but many of those Americans have brown skin.  Some have green cards.  Some have children born in the US.   Already, the border has strict procedures, with drug-sniffing dogs, etc.  and there is often gridlock.  Closing border crossings would be like a doctor recommending patients with sore throats simply pack big wads of epoxy glue in their mouths.  There, problem solved.

 

I sure wouldn't want to be the Sec.of State going to talk to Mexican officials.

 

Tillerson: Hola amigos, Como estas ustedes?  Nice to see you.  I hope all's going great for our well-tanned friends south of the border.  Got any extra enchiladas, ha ha ha ha.

 

Mexican official.  No sir.  Things are not going great.  You've got a new president who calls us rapists and bad hombres.  He wants to build a wall which won't work and he says he's going to force us to pay for it.  Not cool, sir.  

 

Tillerson:  Oh not to worry.  No es problemo.  Senor Trump says silly things, but they're meant for his rabid fans.  They're not really true.  Did you think they were actual real policy?  ha ha ha, you need a bigger brain under that big sombrero, hombres, ha ha ha ha.   Hey, by the way, we love your lettuce-pickers and house cleaners.  Some of you guys cleaned my pool last week, and you did a really good job.  Keep sending your low-paid workers.   We love you guys.   Don't believe the silly things Trump says.   He loves your tacos.   He's a real kidder, ha ha ha ha.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by boomerangutang

[ddavidovsky]

10 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Every one of the 11 Million people who have sneaked into America over the last 20-30 years and all their families and children are a Threat?

Seriously? To Who? Children who were born there, and know no other place are a threat?

Did you think your comment through?

Immigrants, which incidentally is what built America, go there looking for a better life. Exactly what the Pilgrim Fathers did so may years ago. If they arrived today they would be thrown in jail and sent home!

Trump and his right wing fascists would have ignorant people confuse these generally honest, hard working people with terrorists, who are an entirely different animal.

Popular policy with the ill educated Redneck "They're takin our jobs." voters, but in reality, the overall majority of the 11 Million present absolutely no threat to America.

Many of them take the shitty low paid jobs the average American won't do.

So fine, deport them all and then wonder why you have no nannies for your kids and your garbage hasn't been collected for three weeks.

You try to have the rats feasting on youir garbage eradicated, but the pest control company has no staff. They all got deported!

These things should be thought through properly, which is not happening.

Knee jerk reaction by someone out of their depth, desperate for approval ratings.

 

Have you seen West Side Story? Whether unfair, simplistic, or accurate, I would suggest it's experiences of this kind that underpins many Americans' feelings towards immigrants. It's a competition for resources as well as a culture clash. In that story, the immigrants were directly competing for local territory.

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Have you seen West Side Story? Whether unfair, simplistic, or accurate, I would suggest it's experiences of this kind that underpins many Americans' feelings towards immigrants. It's a competition for resources as well as a culture clash. In that story, the immigrants were directly competing for local territory.

With respect, West Side Story was musical loosely based on Romeo and Juliet.

[harrry]

11 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Every one of the 11 Million people who have sneaked into America over the last 20-30 years and all their families and children are a Threat?

Seriously? To Who? Children who were born there, and know no other place are a threat?

Did you think your comment through?

Immigrants, which incidentally is what built America, go there looking for a better life. Exactly what the Pilgrim Fathers did so may years ago. If they arrived today they would be thrown in jail and sent home!

Trump and his right wing fascists would have ignorant people confuse these generally honest, hard working people with terrorists, who are an entirely different animal.

Popular policy with the ill educated Redneck "They're takin our jobs." voters, but in reality, the overall majority of the 11 Million present absolutely no threat to America.

Many of them take the shitty low paid jobs the average American won't do.

So fine, deport them all and then wonder why you have no nannies for your kids and your garbage hasn't been collected for three weeks.

You try to have the rats feasting on youir garbage eradicated, but the pest control company has no staff. They all got deported!

These things should be thought through properly, which is not happening.

Knee jerk reaction by someone out of their depth, desperate for approval ratings.

What is the threat is the loss of control of who can live in the country.  Every immigrant who enters ilegally and is allowed to stay weakens that.

[Ace of Pop]

Immigration policy is the Business of the Nation not its next door neighbor.Mexico fought for Independence,so did Burma here, reap what yer sow



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[ddavidovsky]

42 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

With respect, West Side Story was musical loosely based on Romeo and Juliet.

Adapted to the contemporary issue of immigration. The turf war depicted between rival gangs lines when immigrants moved into the neighbourhood is quite realistic and sociologically grounded. Mainstream films like this will have fed the popular psyche of modern America regarding immigration.

[Ace of Pop]

And Mexicans Dance on Their Hat .Non PC and totally Racist.[emoji67]?‍[emoji264][emoji1494]Jeez I'm sick of bloody financial refugees


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[kowpot]

Edited February 24, 2017 by kowpot

[boomerangutang]

On 2/24/2017 at 9:01 AM, harrry said:

What is the threat is the loss of control of who can live in the country.  Every immigrant who enters ilegally and is allowed to stay weakens that.

     Interesting.  If you want to talk about 'loss of control' I'll mention one word:  TRUMP. He's a loose cannon on a ship packed with firecrackers.  He's proving how dangerous to America he intends to be.   Same for the harmful-to-America goons he surrounds himself with.

 

        As for immigrants:   Some are bad, but the overwhelming majority are good folks who want to get jobs and raise a family in a free country.  If you want to talk about a class of people who worry me, it's Trump voters (they're so dumb and easily fooled), but mostly a subgroup of Trump voters who are rednecks, gun-huggers, intelligence-challenged, eats lots of meat, and 96% are overweight.  I'd much rather live in a neighborhood of immigrants than one with hyper-selfish, always fearful & paranoid rednecks.   I've known hundreds of each type of people, so I know what I'm talking about.