Mexico says its illegal for U.S. citizens to patrol border within U.S.

[drummer55]

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico will pursue legal action against plans by a U.S. citizens' group to patrol the U.S.-Mexican border in search of illegal immigrants, the country's foreign minister said on Monday.

Luis Ernesto Derbez said he asked lawyers in Los Angeles to draw up a legal strategy to fight the Arizona-based initiative called "the MinuteMan Project" that has signed up hundreds of volunteers for border patrols.

"We are going to attack by all legal means," Derbez told a news conference. "We are presenting the reasons why we consider this action to be incorrect and illegal from the point of view not only of our government but also under U.S. law."


More at

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=7765407

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Well well it may not be ilegal under US law

but this is just asking for trouble

The border is NOT well marked, especially in the wild areas, so any of these people can easily enter Mexican territory and not even know it. Trust me on this, even with a GPS... it is at times hard.

Moreover, waht happens when any of these yahoos fires across the border and KILLS somebody? Farmers and herders get that close to the border.

Oh and one more thing, this is no longer the wild west

[ComerPerro]

4. Yeah, this is a disaster waiting to happen

Wait until the vigilantes start killing people.

[htuttle]

19. They've already started killing people

I've been hearing about vigilante killings around the border for almost ten years now.

No links handy, but do some googling on bodies found near the Mexican border. The number for the last decade is in the thousands.

[blondeatlast]

32. No less evil, IMHO, but a lot of it is dehydration and starvation.

Coyotes* are part of it, too--an enormous part. There are definitely some terribly suspect deaths that cannot be explained by the above.

I can't understand Arizonans' (I am one) attitudes toward the border crossers, whom I consider regfugess.

*Slang. A person who smuggles illegal immigrants into the United States, especially across the Mexican border. (dictionary.com)

They are brutal excuses for DNA and carbon; just hideous excuses for human beings. Think of slave trafficers and you get the picture.

[Redstone]

34. You raise an excellent point, blondeatlast...

The coyotes are evil scum, and should be dealt with accordingly.

But these vigilantes aren't going after the coyotes (They're too chicken, I suspect), which makes them a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.

Redstone

[HereSince1628]

2. Well, that will be spun as Mexico promoting illegal immigration

by the wild-eyed vigilantes.

[southernleftylady]

3. isnt bush promoting illegal immigration??? nt

[HereSince1628]

10. No Bush is promoting cheap labor, he wants it to be legal but

not with access to any government programs...well, he's against US having access to government programs so maybe that isn't really worth mentioning...

[Pushed To The Left]

95. Exactly!

This is why both sides of the illegal immigration debate need to band together and find a practical solution. They share a common enemy in cheap labor conservatism! One side thought the right wing was on their side when the right wing actually cared more about cheap labor. The other side is unhappy with the right wing for their divisiveness and race-baiting.

I know that getting groups like La Raza and the Minutemen to band together doesn't seem realistic, but that would truly be a cheap labor conservative's worst nightmare!

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Redstone]

5. Well, isn't it a government's right to take action against

foreign citizens (non-law-enforcement) who illegally detain citizens of that country?

If these vigilante clowns "detain" anyone coming over the border, isn't that kidnapping, since they're not officers of the law?

I stand with the Mexcian Government on this. They're protecting their citizens.

Redstone

[radwriter0555]

6. I agree. Besides, as Native Americans, Mexicans SHOULD BE ALLOWED to

freely traverse the US/Mexican border, and to get work permits, driver's licences and easily gained permission to live and work here.

The ONLY reason they're "ILLEGAL" is purely based on RACISM.

They're Native Americans and really should be treated as such. CANADA allows that Native Americans traverse the borders unimpeded... we should do this with Mexico also, and extend it even further to allow them to live and work here with easily acquired permission.

[Redstone]

7. Hey, wait a minute! I'm an American Indian

(I don't much care for the term "Native American"), and theat's the first I've heard about the "free passage" in Canada.

Is is just for certain recognized tribes in certain areas (for example the Western prairies), or what?

I'd appreciate any information you have.

Thanks,

Redstone

[Frances]

8. I'm clueless about the best term to use for U.S. "Indians"

What are the alternatives and the advantages/disadvantages of each?

[signmike]

13. I am part Blackfoot - I prefer "Blanket Ass"

;-)

[Redstone]

24. Well, I don't know who came up with the term "native american"

whether it was Indians or white folks, but a lot of Indians don't care for it.

On the other hand, many Indians do prefer it. I'm not starting an argument here.

I questions the term "native american" anyway, because if you subscribe to the popular (and reasonable) Bering Land Bridge crossing theory, we actually came here from Siberia...Omigod, we're really RUSSIANS!

(That's a joke, people.)

Oops, forgot that you had asked for advice. Mine is this: Use whatever you're most comfortable with, and if someone objects, use what they prefer.

(Not that I give people a hard time if they use the term Native American, even though I don't care for it. They're just being polite, so why should I be cranky about it? It's not the end of the world, after all, is it?)

Redstone

[K-W]

48. How can we possibly use Indians for two completely different groups?

Im not saying I get to tell anyone how to describe themselves, it just seems to me that Indian is just an inherently problematic choice. American Indians aren't from India and have no relation to India.

[ProgressiveConn]

97. I'd have to say that the ideal way to refer to them is by

their nation's name. And by what they call themselves not names that enemy tribes or Euros gave them. That should probably offend the least amount of people.

Both terms "native american" and "Indian" are seriously flawed. Personally I use "native" when I can and "Indian" when I must. I seem to have more of a problem with the term Indian than most natives I've talked with. I get REAL tired of hearing "The Ghandi kind or the O-O-O kind?" When using the term Indian.

[CHIMO]

11. Believe It Is Correct

Couldn't find a reference but found this. This might give one a start.

First Nations and the Jay Treaty
http://www.cbsc.org/alberta/content/canadian_exporters.pdf

[radwriter0555]

17. Yes, the Jay Treaty allows for Native Americans to freely cross the

Canadian/US border without impediment.

One particular method is, upon arriving at the border, begin speaking in your indian language. The border guards are not allowed to impede you once they realize you're a Native American.

However, you cannot break any laws...

[radwriter0555]

21. WOW, there ARE Mexican/American tribes who ARE allowed to freely cross

the US/Mexico border! Who KNEW???

Indigenous Peoples on the Border

Indigenous peoples who have been on the North American continent much longer than Mexico, the United States of America and Canada are adversely affected by these countries’ international boundaries.

The Jay Treaty and the Treaty of Ghent protect the right of tribes whose lands are bisected by U.S.-Canadian border to cross between the two countries. The same protection was not explicitly guaranteed to tribes divided by the U.S.-Mexican border. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo separated the Kumeyaay Indians of California from the Kumiai of Baja California. The Gadsden Purchase separated Tohono O'odham and other tribes in Arizona from their relatives in Sonora, Mexico.

For many years, indigenous peoples crossed easily between Mexico and the United States, because they were known to border agents and secured inexpensive border crossing cards. Growing restrictions on immigration to the United States over the last decades have made it more difficult for tribes to maintain cross-border ties. Immigration and customs agents often question the border crossings of tribal members, who may lack the documents and finances necessary for passports and visas.
The Texas Band of Kickapoo Act of 1983 was passed to allow the Kickapoo to cross freely between Texas and Mexico, where they reside. In recent years, the Tohono O’odham, the Cocopah, and the Yaqui people and the Kumeyaay in California have lobbied to secure their rights to travel across their ancestral lands.

http://www.sandiego.edu/lrc/broaderborders/indigenous.html

[Redstone]

23. Well, damn, that counts me out...

"One particular method is, upon arriving at the border, begin speaking in your indian language."

The Pennacooks lost their language when they got mostly wiped out by disease and went to live with their "cousins" the Abenakis.

Redstone

[barb162]

14. Does Mexico allow "native Americans" south of its border to enter

unimpeded. Does it allow native Americans from other countries "to get work permits, driver's licences and easily gained permission to live and work" in Mexico?

Every country has immigration policies and to use the word "illegal"as being "purely based" on racism is a total stretch and also incorrect.

If you want to live in or work in Mexico here are some of the rules and visa applications/ requirements and it looks to me like they can fine you and lock you up if you don't comply.

http://www.solutionsabroad.com/a_immigrationmexico.asp

[radwriter0555]

15. I honestly believe that the US, Canada and Mexico should behave like the

EU does, enabling it's citizens to freely traverse, work and drive within each others cooperative nations. It would make SO much more economic sense for us all to cooperate.

Perhaps a Statesman will propose just such an outrageous concept, eh?

Senator Boxer? Are you LISTENING?

[Siyahamba]

78. I completely agree!

Most people don't realize how hard it is for a Canadian to work, go to school, or live in the US.

[fat free goodness]

69. Why would you say Mexican = Native American?

[barb162]

12. The Mexican government doesn't do very much at all to

protect its citizens. Why doesn't it spend some money putting border guards on their side of their own nation. Why don't they do something about making life more attractive in their own country.

[radwriter0555]

16. What's unattractive about a life in Mexico? Have you traveled that nation

at all? I have, extensively, as well as countless other places on the planet.

I find myself returning to Mexico constantly, as it's a lovely place with wonderful people and endless adventures and explorations in culture, shopping, diversity and socio-economics.

I recommend the Yucatan, personally. They have some amazing, lovely old colonial cities mixed in amongst the ancient mayan villages.

[barb162]

22. I have been in Mexico. And I remember them checking very

carefully my Mexico auto insurance policy, etc. What I am saying here is that Mexico has immigration policies and I don't understand why others here think Mexican nationals should just be allowed to come here whenever they feel like it without documents, visas, work permits,etc. Mexico didn't seem to care that I was born in the US (no automatic entry); they sure were checking my documentation. I knew I could be fined bigtime without a Mexico auto policy.

Several areas of Mexico don't even have potable water and I always have wondered with all that oil money why that is, haven't you? Do you think some, if not a lot of government officials are on the take?

[Redstone]

26. That's not the point, for Christ's sake

Nobody is talking about "allowing Mexicans to come here whenever they feel like it."

What we're saying is that the U.S. should not allow private citizens who are not law-enforcement officers to detain people they suspect of being illegal aliens.

How would you like it if some Mexican who was not a police or immigration officer held you captive against your will while you were in Mexico? Or even demanded to see your passport?

Redstone

[barb162]

38. Maybe if there were a million+ illegal US citizens heading into

Mexico every year, there would be Mexican non-police officers holding the US illegals against their will. In other words, step back a second and look at the reasons people here are getting up in arms to where they are taking matters into their own hands...the USA is not protecting its borders?

[Redstone]

43. Sorry barb,...unsupported supposition...

We are supposed to be a country dedicated to the rule of law, not vigilantism.

According to your reasoning, every group of people who see anything happening that they consider to be a problem, and think that the government isn't doing enough to solve that problem, should be able to take the law into their own hands.

OK, then.

Redstone

[barb162]

54. the rule of law is that we have immigration laws and procedures for

people who want to enter this country. Many people wait years and are sometimes denied. Then we have about a million plus a year crossing illegally. Year in and year out. This certainly isn't something like I am making a citizen's arrest for something like spitting on a sidewalk. I think it is really a serious issue that has been going on for so many years. I'd like to see the borders really protected and all I need is to hear anything about terrorists coming in through the south border and I say well, sure, if that's how you want to get in, that's probably way better/easier than having to show a passport at some airport. I think also that when you have the Mexican government doing that comic book on entering the USA, things have gotten totally out of hand. Can you think of any other countries doing that? I can't. I wonder if Vincente Fox has an open border policy for Mexico's south borders? Would Mexico allow a million undocumented people in a year? NOT!

[Redstone]

58. Still broken logic....

You point out some real problems, and I agree with a fair percentage of your statements. I understand your concerns.

However, not one of your assertions, true though they might be, justifies vigilantism.

Are there other problems we have in this country, problems which the government is not dealing with adequately, that justify vigilantism?

If so, please let me know what they are.

Please read this carefully: Immigration is a hot-button concern for you. Note carefully that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your concerns.

But...

There are other issues inthis country that, though they may not be of major concern to YOU, are hot-button items for other people. Do you feel that people with these other concersn would be justfied in rationalizing vigilantism in pursuit of their goals, or is immigration the ONLY problem that justifies it?

Look deep into your heart, if you would. And stick to the issue, please, which is NOT whether we have a problem eith illegal immigration, but whether that problem, or any other, excuses these cowclowns taking the law into their owns hands.

Redstone

[barb162]

71. use of word "vigilantes" is incorrect, way off base

from the article: "Volunteers from at least 29 states plan to camp out in April on ranches and public land to spot and report illegal immigrants to the U.S. Border Patrol."

"Spot and report" to the border police doesn't sound to me like a bunch of people ganging up on, tying up, detaining, etc., illegals. It's more like a giant neighborhood watch program, the neighborhood being the USA border.

(In addition the government of Mexico is getting bent out of shape that American citizens want to "spot and report" on the illegals, the same government that encourages its citizens through its comic book guides to VIOLATE the sovereignty of its neighbor to the north. I'd like to take that comic book, send several hundred thousand if not a few million to Central American countries explaining how their citizens can cross illegally into Mexico. Do you think Mr. Fox might be a little upset if a million or so illegals started crossing into Mexico. Would you want to take bets on this?)

[barb162]

81. complete misstatement of facts; check the definition of "vigilante"

No one is talking about taking the law into their own hands in that article. It is as if you are doing fantastical "thinking." My reasoning has nothing to do with one taking the law into one's own hands.

[BikeWriter]

86. They wouldn't mind. We spend money there. Western Union gets...

...most of the profit from illegals here as they send their wages back to Mexico.

[DeaconBlues]

47. Nobody is talking about "allowing Mexicans to come here whenever they feel

like it"

Actually, if you read above, that's what a lot of people here are advocating.

[Redstone]

50. OK, then it's just ME not talking about letting Mexicans

come here when they feel like it, if that clarifies things for you.

The subject is vigilantism.

Pick one, and you may not include side issues, such as whether you think immigration is a problem. The questions regards vigilantism, for any goal:

A) It's OK for private U.S. citizens to form vigilante groups and take the law into their own hands.

B) It's not OK.

Pick one. Your opinion may vary from mine, but that's the point of the discussion. Not immigration policy, which is the job of the government to enforce, not Joe Blow.

Redstone

[DeaconBlues]

52. Okay, vigilantism is a bad thing

But illegal immigration is a part of the discussion, since this movement toward citizens border patrols is partly the product of the unwillingness of both the U.S. and American governments to control the border.

And the larger issue (ultimately what this thread is about) is that the Mexican government has the gall to interpret U.S. law when it either assists or looks the other way when millions break our laws.

[Redstone]

59. More broken logic, I'm afraid...

1) But illegal immigration is a part of the discussion, since this movement toward citizens border patrols is partly the product of the unwillingness of both the U.S. and American governments to control the border.

Sorry. The old saying "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here. In addition, you're saying that when any group of people decide that "the government isn't doing enough" about any problem, they're justified in taking the law into their own hands.

You can argue, but that's exactly your assertion.

2) And the larger issue (ultimately what this thread is about) is that the Mexican government has the gall to interpret U.S. law when it either assists or looks the other way when millions break our laws.

Wrong again. The Mexican government is not "interpreting U.S. law," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Also, the last part of your statement is just absurd. Would you expect the American government to have a law prohibiting you from sneaking into Canada? Of course it doesn't; Canadian immigration laws are not the U.S. government's concern. Sneak into Canada and get caught, and you've broken a Canadian law. The U.S. government doesn't give a damn.

Why should it be any different for Mexico? Or if it's not, should the U.S. start enforcing Canadian immigration law? Is that your contention?

Redstone

[DeaconBlues]

68. Sorry, but its your logic that has problems, as well as your reading

comprehension.

I was not advocating vigilantism - I do not support what the Minutemen are doing. My beef is with the Mexican government taking legal action concerning the actions of U.S. citizens when they have shown little desire in the past to respect our laws.

But its funny you should have so much of a problem with citizens coming together and taking things in their own hands when "the government is not doing enough." Geez, I thought that was what most political activism and our declaration of independence some two-hundred odd years ago was all about.

As far as interpreting U.S. law, I was talking about how the Mexican government is taking legal action because it believes that Americans are breaking our laws based on their interpretation of our laws. And, treaties are made all the time where governments agree to respect each others laws, so your last argument don't make much sense. Even if it were true that its not Mexico's responsibility to keep its citizens out of the U.S. illegally, at least it could stop actively advocating the breaking of our laws (e.g., giving potential refugees booklets on how to circumvent American law).

[barb162]

72. Mexico's government is actively advocating the breaking of our

immigration laws. FACT. If US citizens "spot and report" to border patrol, I don't see how that is breaking any US laws, especially if the landowners give them permission to be on their land. That does not sound like a bunch of lawless/ frontier justice "vigilantes" to me. The only lawlessness I see is the Mexican government's tactics toward the USA and the Mexican citizens not applying for proper immigration documents to the tune of a million a year.

[barb162]

85. Redstone you are the one with "broken" logic

The Mexican government produces that comic book, assisting/abetting violation of US law, for its own citizens. SO if they sneak into the US, they have broken US law. You should be applauding the private citizens who will be reporting these illegals to border patrol.

[barb162]

75. phony issue is vigilantism; real issue is assisting border patrol

[barb162]

74. "spotting and reporting" is not "detaining" illogical deduction to

say it is

[TX-RAT]

102. Question

If illegal immigration is against the law, is it considered a misdemeanor or a felony?

[radwriter0555]

39. Mexican auto insurance policy? I have spent months in MX and have

never had anyone scrutinize my auto policy, but that aside, I don't see anyone suggesting that Mexicans be allowed to come here whenever they feel like it without documents, visas, work permits, etc.

What I'm suggesting, and what perhaps few have thought of (since most people don't actually bother to think, they just regurgitate what others tell them to;) is that Canada, the US and Mexico should adopt the actions and policies of the EU in permitting with (the same type of) regulation the traversing of the 3 nations by the 3 nationalities.

And I'm not sure what oil money you're referring to, since Mexico doesn't rely solely on fossil fuels to fund its economic programs, and since oil exports only account for 7% of export income. PEMEX is state owned and sells its oil for almost half of OPEC, at reasonable prices, and mostly, provides for itself. They're recently downgraded their available reserves to roughly 50% of what had previously been asserted.

Please keep in mind that there are areas of the USA that also do not have potable water, the Mojave desert and parts of Arizona and New Mexico coming to mind most immediately. The US also doesn't provide free college education or free health care for all of its citizens either, like Mexico does.

I think it's safe to assume yes, but not in any way as badly as the thugs in our OWN government. I don't see Mexico sending it's kids off to slaughter entire nations for profit, and I see change coming slowly to a nation rich in culture and history. I'm glad they're not emulating the USA with our cancer causing plastic culture of fake cheese and instant houses.

I don't see the wealthy people of Mexico moving to the USA, I see the working class, uneducated, unskilled coming here, hoping for a better life at a higher rate of pay. Why not? Their people were here on the continent long before my colonial european ancestors.

[barb162]

80. no one checked your insurance evidence at the border? At the

Tijuana border they sure checked. I think there are so many factual errors in what you write subsequently to the auto insurance that I don't want to take the time to respond, except for an example or two. On oil revenue and my point about what the heck they are doing with the oil money. You stated "I'm not sure what oil money you're referring to". Okay, here's from BBC News Country Profiles:

"Mexico is a large oil producer with substantial reserves. Nearly one-third of government revenue comes from this sector.

But prosperity remains a dream for most Mexicans. Rural areas are generally neglected and huge shanty towns ring the major cities. "

Obviously BBC can't figure what they are doing with that oil money either.
-----------------
But one more point about indigenous peoples and Mexicans. Some people in Mexico had ancestors born there and most others are mixed blood people with ancestors from Europe (Spain and possibly elsewhere) and Africa. I don't buy into your comment:"Their people were here on the continent long before my colonial european ancestors." No, just the ones who were indigenous. Some Mexican nationals are truly indigenous to that area of the continent just as are some US nationals are indigenous to areas of this part of the continent. Have you read up on the history of Mexico?


Here's another paragraph from BBC News:
"One of the most persistent problems of recent times has been the pressure for greater rights for Mexico's indigenous people. An indigenous rights law passed in 2001 fell short of giving Mexico's Indians political autonomy."


Compiled by BBC Monitoring

[Leilani]

89. If it's so attractive

why are millions of Mexicans coming to the U.S.?

Sure, it's lovely for tourists, but sucks if you are not part of the ruling oligarchy in Mexico.

[mitchtv]

20. citizen's arrest, not kidnapping

No one is more sympathetic to new immigrants than I, but get on the end of the line please.

[Redstone]

27. Citizen's arrest, my ass

The entire concept of "citizen's arrest" is a legally tenuous one at best. Try it sometime and see what the judge thinks of you, unless you did it to foil a bank robbery or something.

Here's an experiment: Try going out on the streets of your town. Find someone who doesn't "look American" or speaks with an accent and stop them, demanding to see their passport or green card. When they refuse, go ahead and "citizen's arrest" them for suspicion of being here illegally.

Then let us know what the judge had to say to you afterward, please.

Redstone

[amazona]

30. the whole security industry is based on citizen's arrest

While I'm in sympathy with your views, Redstone, technically the other poster has a point.

The concept of citizen's arrest is why security guards can operate in the U.S. and detain people even though they are not members of any law enforcement agency.

I have been detained (momentarily) by security guards and ordered to show identification or proof that I'm allowed to be where I was. It was perfectly legal.

Rent-a-cops may not abuse their privileges and force people to accept prolonged detentions unless they suspect them of having committed a felony, but they can certainly detain them for the purposes of I.D. and questioning. It happens in every store every day every time someone is suspected of shoplifting -- even though shoplifting is not a felony crime.

So I think properly trained volunteers can indeed detain persons they suspect of breaking the law.

I just don't think it is a proper job for these volunteers.

But legally oh yeah...they are well within U.S. law. I've had a lot -- too much -- personal experience in this area!

(On Edit-- to clarify about how I've tested this, I have called the police myself after such a detention to report it, and was told that as far as the police were concerned, it was perfectly legal, and if I had a complaint, to take it up in civil court. In another state, I did take it to civil court, again with the same result, detention and being escorted from an area by private guards is perfectly legal. Sorry.)

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Redstone]

36. amazona, I understand your point, but

If you call the cops to ask about a security guard and "citizen's arrest" the cops are going to tell you it's OK because, even though they look down on security guards, those are at least people whose job it is to keep things under control at the malls, office buildings, etc. They're hired by the property owners.

My point was this: If you had been detained, not by a security guard, but just by some clown who took it upon his vigilante self to "question you" because he thought you were "suspicious," don't you think the cops' reaction to your phone call would have been different?

I bet it would have. These shithead vigilantes on the border haven't been hired or authorized by anyone. They're just a pack of morons.

Redstone

[amazona]

41. well that isn't what they said

They said that by law any citizen can detain anyone if they suspect them of commission of a felony. This is in two different states. Don't know what else to say. I think it is indeed unfair but there it stands.

I do not know if sneaking across the U.S. border is a felony or a misdemeanor so can't address that point.

I don't think it's right but, again, people can authorize themselves to be busybodies and it is, sadly, not illegal.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[ret5hd]

42. that is on private property they were hired to protect...

swee what happens when that "security guard" cruises the public sidewalks of a downtown area "detaining" people...assuming he doesnt get his ass kicked.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slaveplanet]

77. I see your post

and raise you a post.....The entire POLICE forces and border guards are citizens arresters ....being under the umbrella of agencies , they are not even legally government , just mere employee subcontractors to the official government which is "Congress" ever since the War Powers act and reconstruction...we never went back to constitutional civil servant peace officers....The Police we have today are mere Praetorian guard masquerading as civil servants....The so-called "vigilantes" have every right to protect private property on the borders, and if they cross the line and break laws, they can then be prosecuted. A foreign government cannot accuse them of precrime. How could anyone support such a ridiculous notion.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

33. I'm with you, too. nt

[tom_paine]

9. US Citizens, maybe, but of course the US no longer exists

In the AE, the law pretty much begins and ends with Imperial Fiat, with some small lip-service being paid to the mechanisms of the Old Republic until the chamges are irrevocable and those of born and rasied in Free America are old or dead.

[mattclearing]

18. Yeah, down with crazy xenophobic vigilantes.

These people should be locked up the second they lay a finger on someone.

[tcoursen]

25. um

I am not defending what the nutjob "MinuteMen" are trying to do.

But why is Mexico trying to tell US citizens what they can and cannot do in the US? I can totally see them not wanting this group to come across the border and all that. If they want to arrest these guys if they cross into Mexico, go for it. But what right does Mexico have to tell US citizens what they can and cannot do in the US?

[neweurope]

28. Mexico isbtrying to prevents its citizens from being mitreated by armed

US halfwits. I think this is good.

I cannot even imagine the stink the US government would raise if Mexico (or any other country) announced that vigilantes would hunt down US citizens within its borders.

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

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Redstone]

29. You make an excellent point. Aren't governments

supposed to safeguard the rights of their citizens, even when they're in another country? When an American has a problem abroad, the first place they go is the US Embassy, right? And they expect their government to help them even though they're not in the US, right?

This is absolutely a case of "so as we say, not as we do." The people who object to the Mexican government's action would be screaming for the US government to help them if they were detained, kidnapped, or "citizen's arrested" in another country.

Redstone

[amazona]

35. the U.S. embassy is not known for its helpfulness

I haven't heard of them actually being too helpful to ordinary people in trouble. The State Dept. makes it pretty clear that when you're in another country, you may assume that you are on your own as far as having any civil rights.

So it isn't really as "do as we say" as you may think. The State Department's attitude about Americans being detained in other countries is tough s--t.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[neweurope]

37. No way would your government stay quiet if Mexico planned on

having vigilante groups!

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

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[barb162]

84. you ignore something; they are here illegally. If I am in France

illegally am I going to run to the US embassy? Hell the US embassy would probably turn me over to the French or simply deport me back to the US.

[DeaconBlues]

45. If the government of Mexico was so concerned about how it citizens were

treated maybe it would do something about the millions who cross the border illegally every year.

And, of course, Americans are never harassed, kidnapped, and detained illegally in Mexico. Nope never happens.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DeaconBlues]

46. I'm with you

I really question the motives of these so-called Minutemen, but it really pisses me off that Mexico is trying to say what is legal and illegal in our country, especially when it government helps people break our laws every day.

[sweetheart]

40. Smart call, those vigilantes are filth

I've met folks who bragged about shooting at mexican border crossers
crossing the rio grande.. shooting over their heads to scare them, and
getting a macho thrill out of it.

Funny that they don't target the liquid capital flying freely across
the same borders... its ok for kapital to move wherever it wants, but
flesh-labour must be imprisoned... the new dystopia... how distinctly
soviet.

[ultraist]

61. A group of racist, gun toting vigilantes is a HUGE MISTAKE

Talk about opening the door wide open for human rights violations. What type of people would volunteer to do this? Racist, blood thirsty NUTS, that's who.

The US DOES intervene with human rights violations, whether it's their citizens or NOT. So why are people questioning another country doing so?

[Dark]

49. So, explain to me what's wrong with this.

We have millions of people, who we DO NOT KNOW, getting into this country.

Bush is in no hurry to stop them.

And now, some American citizens have taken it into their own hands to report the crossing to the border patrol.

What's wrong with that?

[Redstone]

51. 1) It's not millions of people.

2) These bozos aren't just reporting to the border patrol. Read the background information.

3) We have (maybe) millions of illegal immigrants already here. I have dark skin and black hair. Does that mean that "well-meaning citizens" in my town should "take it into their own hands" to tell Immigration to check to see if I'm here legally? (I'm a natural-born US citizen, by the way. But I might not look like one to some people.)

I've had enough of this. Time to go eat dinner.

Redstone

[Dark]

55. 1.) The article says it's one million people each year.

Show me where it says otherwise.

2.) I don't agree with them being 'vigilantes'. I don't condone violence. However, the article said that they only plan to WATCH for illegal immigrants and report them.

I don't doubt that some are killed by vigilantes. But I really doubt that a group of Americans are going to go to the border and shoot anyone who tries to cross.

More than likely, they're going to keep count in hopes that they will be able to scare their politicians into change.

3.) Neither I nor the article said anything about questioning the citizenship of people already here. The goal is only to report the people who are crossing the border to the border patrols.

[drummer55]

56. 300,000 a month is one estimate. n/t

[barb162]

82. 10 million illegals here per INS , 10,000,000!!!

[Dark]

53. Seriously, what is wrong with allowing Americans to protect America?

Mexico has no right to tell Americans what they can or cannot do on their own soil.

And these immigrants are entering our country without us knowing who they are. They could be terrorists, prisoners, or carrying illnesses. Who knows?

There is a reason that they have to get clearance to come into America.

And this is also wrong because many legal immigrants work for years to earn legal citizenship in the US. Allowing people to cross into America without regulation is spitting in their faces.

[Redstone]

60. "what is wrong with allowing Americans to protect America?"

OK, I give up. You win.

It's OK to "allow Americans to protect America."

That means that it's OK for American fundamentalists to form vigilante groups "to protect America from the Homos."

That means it's OK for American white supremacists to form vigilante groups "to protect America from the Niggers."

That means it's OK for the American nazi skinheads to form vigilante groups "to protect America from the Jews."

The point God damn it, and for the last time because I can't stand this anymore, is NOT that there's a problem with illegal immigration. There is. The point, how many times do I have to say it, is that cowboy vigilantism is immoral, un-American, and dangerous (and in this case RACIST), and will get people killed.

Not to insult any fellow DUers, but Jesus, can't you stop and think for a minute about what we, the good guys, are supposed to be standing for here? Unless I'm very mistaken, it's NOT an attitude of "hell, the gummint ain't keepin them Meskins out, so we'uns will just haveta grab our guns and go keep them out our own damn selves. We don't NEED no esteenking badges."

If you really believe it's OK to deal with the Meskins that way, the blacks and homos and Jews had better look out, because you're saying it's OK to do it to them as well.

Redsotne

[barb162]

83. the vigilante groups against gays and certain ethnic groups are hateful

people and they are wrong. Being against illegal immigration and trying to help border patrol by "spotting" illegal entrants to this country is NOT being a vigilante. You are mixing definitions and getting the whole thing off track.

[ultraist]

62. The US tells other nations what to do, look at Iraq for fucks sake

The US intervenes on a regular basis and mingles in other nations' business. And you are surprised that Mexico is looking out for their citizens? WTF? How ethnocentric. News flash, the days of the US being the big bad bully ass are coming to an end. Get used to it.

Allowing a bunch of racist vigilantes have free reign is WRONG and I hope they put a stop to it.

It sounds like a paramilitary group, much like the KKK!

[shreck]

90. NOt really

The days of the US being the only big bad ass are NOT coming to an end. Get used to it today and tommrow, oh ya and all weekend long.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

91. You say that with such confidence, yet economic and geopolitical

indicators point to errors in your thinking, if it is indeed your thinking and not Faux talking points.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

100. Marking

I want to have a post of mine here. For future reference.

[LdyGuique]

57. This thread is somewhat of a red herring based on the original

premise: that the Mexican government is protesting the grassroots movement of volunteers who would patrol the border. The Mexican government has been singularly unhelpful in patrolling its own side of the borders to prevent crossings. Additionally, it printed and distributed a comic book that showed all the ways that one might safely cross without being discovered; it was also available via a Mexican government website -- this was exposed a couple of months ago. Further, the Mexican government has called Arizona's attempts to control illegal immigration "illegal" and vowed to fight it in international courts.

Additionally, since 1970, the US has created 20 "Totalization" agreements with other countries over social security -- so that one may work in those countries (or they may work here) and not have to pay double social security type taxes and will garner "total" benefits over a lifetime of working by combining these benefits.

During 2003 there has been negotiations between Mexico and the US for a similar totalization agreement. With Mexico it's hardly a balanced situation and could gravely exacerbate any of the issues we may be fighting over Social Security "tanking" by adding millions of Mexicans in Mexico to our SS rolls, especially since few illegals pay into the system.

Since the late 1970s, the United States has entered into a series of bilateral “totalization” agreements that coordinate the U.S. Social Security program with the comparable programs of other countries. To date, 20 such agreements are in force. They have been financially beneficial to U.S. workers and their employers and the associated social security payments to foreign nationals have been reasonable. As such, totalization agreements have been non-controversial. Congress has never voted to disapprove one.

But the proposed totalization agreement with Mexico is profoundly different from prior agreements in four important ways:

1. One-sided. Unlike the 20 existing agreements, a totalization agreement with Mexico would be one-sided. Its beneficial effects to U.S. workers would be miniscule compared to those received by potentially millions of Mexicans. It is expected that the totalization agreement with Mexico would:

Provide only modest tax savings for American workers and their employers compared to other totalization agreements.

Entice Mexicans to remain in the United States for the 10 years it takes to vest for U.S. Social Security (versus 24 in Mexico) in order to maximize their retirement income. The United States pays out far more to low-wage workers than they contribute to the system. In contrast, Mexico only pays out what was contributed, plus accrued interest.

Permit Mexicans to return home and have their spouses and dependents receive U.S. Social Security benefits they would not have been entitled to without a totalization agreement.

Permit partial Social Security benefits to be paid to those who worked in the United States as little as 18 months (six quarters).

Eventually compel the United States to pay out billions in retirement benefits to Mexicans for credits they acquired while using fraudulent Social Security numbers prior to obtaining legal status.

Lure even more Mexicans into the United States illegally in the hopes they would obtain amnesty, thereby making themselves and their families eligible to receive U.S. Social Security benefits once the worker returned to Mexico and reached retirement age.
Source: http://www.mnforsustain.org/cis_social_security_totalization_mexico_0904.htm

While Mexico officially offers quid pro quo rights to work in Mexico, the reality is otherwise:

Need Working Visas for Mexico? FM2 or FM3
You will need a permit granted by the ministry of Interior (Secretaría de Gobernación). To obtain one you will need to fulfill certain requirements.

According to Mexican Law, foreigners may only perform those activities expressly authorized by the Ministry. You are allowed to perform any activity as long as it's legal and honest. This includes the ability to work in the country.

Both as an FM2 or FM3 holder, you may be authorized to perform several activities. These are the most common:

Business or Investor (FM2 or FM3)
You may have considered investing in Mexico and therefore you wish to learn about possible investment options. Or, you might just come down to invest, supervise an investment, represent a foreign company or perform certain commercial activities.

As an INVESTOR: You must note that there is a minimum investment amount as well as the obligation to demonstrate that the investment is beneficial to the country's development.

Scientists and Techinicians (FM2 OR FM3)
In these categories you will have to provide all the documentation that proves to the satisfaction of the authorities that you have the skills and knowledge to perform these activities.

Professionals (FM2 OR FM3) You will have to provide the authorities with all the papers that can prove you have the knowledge and skills to perform the specific professional activities. The applicant must demonstrate that the skills are not met in the workforce in Mexico.

High level management (FM2 OR FM3)
If you were appointed as a director to a company or to assume a key position you will need to obtain this immigration permit.

Members of the board (FM3)
When you need to attend to a board meeting of one or more corporations, this is the migration status you request to the Mexican authorities.

Mexico has enormous disparity in its wealth, which includes billionaires and millionaires, who are championing poor Mexicans moving to the US so that they don't have to come up with viable plans for social benefits. Meanwhile, it is our schools and health systems that are taking a direct hit on providing services to illegal immigrants who are not paying into the system at all as they are "under the radar," and not only are not paying taxes but are being enslaved by substandard wages and working conditions.

I disagree that Mexicans have inherent rights to flow north and work here. I do believe that this issue is far more complex than simple soundbites and needs to be addressed.

[ultraist]

63. Those that don't pay in (ie have SS#s) don't get benefits!

With Mexico it's hardly a balanced situation and could gravely exacerbate any of the issues we may be fighting over Social Security "tanking" by adding millions of Mexicans in Mexico to our SS rolls, especially since few illegals pay into the system

An individual cannot get SS benefits if they don't have a SS #! Those that don't pay in, the undocumented workers, don't have SS#s UNLESS they are using someone else's #, in which case, they are paying into someone else's account and will NEVER see a dime of that pay in.

Mexicans are NOT going to cause SS to tank due to "few illegals paying in." The millions added to the SS rolls are legal and they ARE paying in!

That site also noted that more than half of the Mexicans here are illegal, that is NOT TRUE. Check the USCB for stats.

I've heard it all now, 'it's the MEXICANS that are causing our Social Security system to tank!'

What does this have to do with a bunch of paramilitary vigilantes patrolling the border?

LdyGuiquie: Your argument is right off of the Michelle Markin blog, the conservative townhall site that posts Ann Coutler articles:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20040107.shtml

[mitchtv]

64. I disagree that few are paying into the SS system

Many are even if it is under a phony number. You don't get paid cash by many around here. I always wonder how many get their taxes deducted, then the employer pockets it. But believe me taxes are deducted from the overwelming majority- except 'casual' labor.

[Ms. Clio]

66. And under the former Bracero Program, money was deducted from the pay

of millions of legally imported Mexican workers and placed in "savings accounts."

They never saw a dime of it again, of course.

[ultraist]

67. LdyGuique stated "few llegals are paying in"

I was quoting her, that's why I used the quotation marks.

And my point was, that those that don't pay in, don't get benefits. BECAUSE, they do not have a SS#. Undocumentated workers cannot legally obtain a SS#.

If they are undocumentated workers and ARE paying in, they are paying into someone elses account and will NOT get benefits.

Therefore, her/his argument was totally bogus.

A lot of undocumentated workers work under the table so that the employer doesn't have to pay workmans comp, unemployment insurance, payroll taxes, meet OSHA standards, etc.

But, yes, there are also a lot of undocumentated workers that use other people's SS #s. And they will NEVER see a dime of this money.

Do you have any stats on the estimated percentage of undocumentated workers that use other people's SS#s compared to those who work under the table?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

101. WHOA!

Search page here I go!

[barb162]

87. No citizens of one nation has any right to go to another nation

without the express permission of the receiving nation. That's the way things are set up on this planet these days and for the last several decades. That's what borders, passports, visas, sovereignty, etc., are about. Neither Mexicans or any citizens of other nations have the right to enter other countries without permission. Mexicans have NO inherent rights to come here any more than US nationals have an inherent right to go to Mexico. Each nation has the right to protect its borders.

[Rex]

65. So is Mexico gonna attack us?

First Canada doesn't want to share airspace, now Mexico is going to take potshots are crazy milita people. Not that they don't deserve it.

[drummer55]

70. some are saying they are already with the numbers coming across n/t

[Ms. Clio]

76. Some are saying President Bush is God's chosen, too n/t

[Bouncy Ball]

98. "Some are saying" huh?

FUX news' favorite way of saying something without saying it.

[William Bloode]

79. Well,

While i don't really condone it being done by private citizens, the fact remains or goverment does not enforce the laws on the books. Something has to be done about this, we should be enforcing the laws on our books.

This is not a story about what the citizens are doing as much as it is about what our goverment is not doing.

[pabloseb]

88. The amount of disguised racism in DU is sad

:cry:

[Ms. Clio]

93. Some of it isn't at all disguised--and yes, it's sad and also disgusting

[scottty]

92. How is it wrong

for people to patrol the border in their own country?

[dv8]

94. I'd sooner trust the Minutemen than the govt

Who scares you more?

[Bouncy Ball]

99. You do.