Since Mexico prohibits ownership of almost 40% of it's landmass

[AzDar]

by any foreign investor; and the Mexican Constitution (IIRC) gives preference for ALL employment opportunities to Mexican Nationals, shouldn't any immigration proposals proffered by Congress contain similar prohibitions? Just askin'.....

[Ian David]

1. Remember The Alamo?

The last time Mexico allowed Americans to own their land, we started a war and took Texas.

I propose we just give Texas back to them.

Fuck Texas.

They can have it.

Sorry, Texas DUers, but you're welcome to move to Massachusetts.

In 20 years, it will be as hot as Texas anyway.

[Ignacio Upton]

3. Just don't give them back the rest of the southwest

....oh, we're keeping Austin and the Gulf shoreline.

[Ian David]

15. Might as well make California an independent country, too

If we did, I'd move there.

Let's give them George W. Bush's home state.

Yeah.

Give 'em CONNECTICUT!

They can have Lieberman.

[bemildred]

43. Lets have a referendum, bring back the Califiornia Republic.

Think how much easier it will be for the remainder of the USA to become a "conservative" banana republic without us. It's a win-win deal.

[mike_c]

52. I'm up for that....

eom

[AzDar]

4. Hell, I'd gladly give 'em Texas... and throw in West Virginia for good

measure..(never liked W.V., LOL)

[Neil Lisst]

34. Would Mexico have been better off if conquered by the US?

Mexico has plenty of great resources. It would be difficult to create a system of governance that screwed up as much as the governments created by the Spanish Conquistadors and their descendents.

Perhaps if Mexico had been made part of the US 150 years ago, it would be a thriving country like Canada and the US, instead of the hell-hole it is.

I'm not suggesting it should have been, but let's keep things in perspective. Mexico is a disaster and has been most of its history, primarily because it's run by cultural and racial elites who protect the vested class at the expense of everyone else.

As countries go, Mexico is an embarrassing failure.

[VirtualChicano]

42. You seriously have no idea what you are talking about

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

in spite of the raping that the United States did to Mexico it is and has been the world's 10th largest economy.

so far, this is the most ignorant statement that i have read in here, congrats!

[Ignacio Upton]

51. Maybe parts of it

All of the suburban and exurban sprawl in the OC and California (AKA "Alta California) would move down to Baja, though. Cabo would be a bigger tourist destination for young spring break girls than it is today. The "west coast" would inclue the Mexican coast, and we would have more racial tension and more conflicts with Native Americans (do you think that white settlers from the U.S. would NOT have fucked around with the Mayan-speaking peoples in southern Mexico?)

[rockymountaindem]

2. Fair is fair

I notice the people who are out on DU trying to tell us how Mexicans and Canadians "are Americans too" or "borders are just outdated constructs" never have anything to say about reciprocal treatment in other countries. I go to a Canadian university, and I had to pay $125 for a student visa which expires after I graduate. If I stay here after that without paying additional immigration fees or moving toward citizenship, I could be arrested and deported. I don't begrudge Canada these things, as it is the arrangement works out fine for me, since I plan on leaving after school. But I wouldn't expect Canada to just let me walk across the border unannounced and live on their territory without knowing who I am. I don't expect the US to afford such consideration to *anyone*, either.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Wow, I'm glad to hear there are no undocumented people in

Canada. Zero undocumented people living there.

How do they do that?

They certainly have it together....

[rockymountaindem]

10. Actually, there are undocumented people in Canada

In fact, the Canadian government recently began deporting 15 thousand illegal Portuguese immigrants, some of whom had been living here over five years. So far, few are decrying the Canadian government as bigoted or xenophobic.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. That's nothing, we are deporting about 50,000 people a year, every

year.

Have been for years.


I haven't heard much outcry about that. Have you?

[rockymountaindem]

31. Well, I think the people we're deporting now

aren't the ones who would be affected by the current debate on illegal immigration. The outcry seems to be over the lack of deportation, not the prevalence of it.

[John Q. Citizen]

54. That's my point. We deport daily. A lot of people. But to listen to

some they seem to think none are deported.

I think we need to recognize all the factors in the movement of peoples. There are the push factors and the pull factors that lead people to come to the US. This is true of all people anywhere anytime.

NAFTA (and the world bank and the WTO) has proven to be a push factor and a pull factor driving people to leave their homes and relocate to the US.

We can blame people who move, or their governments for NAFTA, THE World BanK and the WTO, but that seems ridicules.

I listened to Tom Hartman's analysis, which I think was good, except he was long on the problem and very short on the solutions. The fact of the matter is it's not worth it economically, socially or politically to track down every illegal alien and deport them. It's not worth it economically, socially or politically to track down every employer of illegals and jail/confiscate them and their business.

The only thing that will truly work is to address the push/pull factors of immigration, which isn't very attractive to many in this country. While people complain that aliens move here, they aren't too hep on developing the economies of the countries from which immigrants arrive, unless their is some way to also exploit that developement, above and beyond the push factors.

As for the pull factors, the business community apparently loves cheap labor and is more than willing to keep on pulling by providing incentives to immigrants.

Let's throw them all in jail isn't really an option, any more than turning the middle east into a sheet of glass is an option. But don't try telling that to the true believers. They just plain won't believe you.

Do they love cheap labor more than tax cuts? I don't know.

I guess in the end we will either have to live it, or live with it.

[Booster]

5. I certainly agree with you, but Americans will just say "Americans

won't do those jobs if you ask 'em", and they're right. We will not do those jobs for what they want to pay Mexicans to do them. Remember when Walmart was caught paying illegals 2 DOLLARS A DAY for cleaning their store? They let them stay in the store and fed them, but that still doesn't make up for it. Vicente Fox is the real problem here, and America needs to wake up to that fact, that and the fact that we don't penalize employers for breaking our own laws. I don't blame the illegals, I blame our own government and employers for this mess.

[RagingInMiami]

6. Like maybe we shouldn't sell our ports off?

That would be an idea.

[Inland]

7. I think the laws of any state discriminate, in some fashion,

between nationals/citizens/residents and others. I didn't know the concept was controversial until reading some of the immigration threads.

[AzDar]

11. I was SHOCKED to learn during this whole brouhaha that Mexico

has pretty much closed off IT'S southern borders completely. The hypocrisy is truly astonishing..

[Inland]

19. I'm not, but I see your point.

Fact is, it isn't just Americans who think that Mexicans are a different community. Mexicans do, too, and raises concerns that I've set forth in other threads about huge communities of migrants who don't feel a sense of shared community with me.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Inland/29

"Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's also an assumption, entirely warranted, that some aren't going to care about the USA. I have no idea why I would want an *unlimited* (and I mean that only in the sense that I think a billion people is without a limit practically) number of people physically present and interacting who don't care about the US and without feeling any personal stake in me, mine or my society.

"See, I don't believe that working a job is the sine qua non of being a good member of society. I'm not a huge believer in homo economicus as our essential social being. I don't believe people obey laws, give to charity, attend town hall meetings, or vote because they are employed here. I think those things happen because they give a shit about a society they are part of.

"So when those millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of immigrants come here, will they be in favor of building schools that will serve future generations? Volunteering for the army? Building highways? Cooperating with the police? Picking up litter? Or will they be against all those things and waiting for the day they can take their money and anything else that they were able to gain in terms of education "home" as soon as they see an advantage? Is anyone even asking if they believe in things like law, equality, democracy? What's to say that there isn't going to be a barricade going up the next week?

"Conversely, exactly how long do you think that the citizenry is going to have the exact same laws for wages and safety apply to these immigrants? If there is such a thing as a social compact, or a basic feeling of comity and a two way street, and the immigrants hold themselves outside of it, then certainly the voting citizens are going to feel the same way. That is, US citizens don't feel all THAT bad about Mexicans making less than the US minimum wage in Mexico. Why should they care more that Mexicans make less than the US minimum wage in the US? Because we assume that there IS no magic that causes people to become part of the larger community just by the fact of moving across the border, no change in attitude AT ALL is going to be had. End result: a permanent class of peons or a permanent effort to maintain immigration as a foreign aid program."

[mike_c]

9. that depends-- do you want a society and economy like Mexico's...?

If so, I'd recommend emulating as much as possible.

Yours is essentially a straw argument. Mexican and U.S. society, culture, and economy got to where they are today by very different routes, and are on very different future trajectories. Trying to compare them the way you're trying to do is pretty fruitless.

One other thing to consider: Mexico is on a generally upward trajectory and the U.S. is on a generally downward one IMO-- I base that on a decade of travel in Mexico and my personal experience in the U.S., not on hard data-- but more and more Americans are REVERSING the immigration flow, especially retirees who find that their pensions afford them a FAR better lifestyle in Mexico than in the U.S. I hope to retire in Mexico or somewhere else in Latin America, and I'd really like to feel welcomed by the Mexicans when I do. That makes me think twice about pulling in the welcome mat for Mexican nationals who want to spend their working years in the U.S. It is at least partly their effort that keeps the U.S. economy running, AND contributes to the rising standard of living in Mexico that I hope to enjoy some day.

[AzDar]

16. Not a straw argument at all. The point being that the Mexican government

has imposed certain regulations pertaining to foreigners working and/or owning property there; meanwhile Mexicans are marching in the streets HERE demanding that even those here ILLEGALLY, be offered the SAME opportunities available to U. S. citizens. Shouldn't we, at the very LEAST, have the same 'protections' in place?

[mike_c]

17. I say no-- that is inconsistent with what I consider core American values.

That it isn't inconsistent with Mexican history and culture is not relevant, IMO.

[sandnsea]

12. The employment measures are there

I imagine bribery and other illegal activities go on in Mexico too. The legislation does require Americans be offered jobs first and has a provision for a computerized system to check immigration status. It also turns enforcement over to the Dept of Labor so the provisions will be taken more seriously. But when somebody is breaking the law to pay someone under the table, no amount of legislation can stop that. The same people who want to build walls tend to be the ones who also use all the known excuses when THEY want to hire cheap labor. That's the problem.

As to property ownership, I think that's a separate issue because we've never prohibited anybody from owning land here that I know of. That would have all kinds of ramifications, and I don't think that's particularly an immigration issue anyway.

[VirtualChicano]

13. Those lands are indigenous

Those lands are indigenous. The U.S. does not allow Native Americans to sell off reservation land to foreigners. In addition, All resources belong to the state and therefore it's people.

The U.S. federal gov. owns the overwhelming majority of land in the U.S. and gives it away free to any corporate conglomerate who can exploit it but will not give a 5x5 piece of it to the millions of homeless unless it is in a prison.

[mike_c]

21. best reply in this thread-- EVERYONE READ THIS....

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Seems like the rest of us missed it.

[Inland]

24. Does it allow a sale to non-indigenous Mexicans?

Let me hypothesize about a Mexican with no Indian blood ancestry. Or an immigrant from the US, naturalized Mexican. Can he buy the "indigenous land"?

Can an apache from Arizona buy the land?

If it's not no/yes, then it's clearly directed at foreigners, not protection of indians. I can't buy land on an indian rez in the states at all.

[VirtualChicano]

29. No, they cannot

Zapata added a clause into the constitution of 1910 that recognizes Idigenous communal living.

Salinas had most of it stricken to meet the NAFTA requirements. and now the Neo-liberalists want to end the whole thing, hence, the Zapatista revolutionary movement.

The land cannot be purchased by anyone.

<edited for sp>

[mike_c]

33. I presume this is the ejido land...?

If so, I understand that it actually can be converted to "private property" and sold, even to foreigners, under certain circumstances: http://www.mexicolaw.com.mx/ejido.html

[Inland]

30. Hey, I found something directly contrary.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int13.htm
"The Mexican Constitution prohibits direct ownership of real estate by
foreigners in what has come to be known as the "restricted zone". The
restricted zone encompasses all land located within 100 kilometers
(about 62 miles) of any Mexican border, and 50 kilometers (about 31
miles) of any Mexican coastline."

If true, then it's clearly not to protect indigenous peoples. It's pretty clearly directed at preventing ownership of land that might lead to secession---IOW, discrimination based on nationalism.

[mike_c]

35. foreigners can still hold those lands via real estate trusts...

...although it's my understanding that there is a certain degree of obfuscation and potential fraud involved in this, not by the Mexican gov't but by greedy real estate "developers." It seems greed is pretty much a universal condition that doesn't recognize international borders. Remember, the meaning of "ownership" is not universal, either.

The Mexican Constitution prohibits direct ownership of real estate by
foreigners in what has come to be known as the "restricted zone". The
restricted zone encompasses all land located within 100 kilometers
(about 62 miles) of any Mexican border, and 50 kilometers (about 31
miles) of any Mexican coastline. However, in order to permit foreign
investment in these areas, the Mexican government created the
"fideicomiso", which can be roughly translated as a real estate trust.
Essentially, this type of trust is similar to trusts set up in the
United States, but in this case a Mexican bank must be designated as the
trustee, and, as such, has title to the property and is the owner of
record. The Mexican Government created the "fideicomiso" to reconcile
the problems involved in developing the restricted zone and to attract
foreign capital. This enabled foreigners, as beneficiaries of the
trusts, to enjoy unrestricted use of land located in the restricted
zone.

A "fideicomiso" is a trust agreement created for the benefit of a
foreign buyer, executed between a Mexican bank and the seller of
property in the restricted zone. Since foreign buyers do not have the
capacity to enter into a normal real estate sales contract, due to
Constitutional restrictions, the bank acts on their behalf.

The bank, as trustee, buys the property for the foreigner, and has a
fiduciary obligation to follow instructions given by the beneficiary.
The beneficiary of the trust retains and enjoys all the rights of
ownership while the bank holds title to the property. The foreigner is
the beneficiary of the trust and is entitled to use, enjoy and, if he or
she should decide to, even sell the property held in trust at its market
value to any eligible buyer.

[Inland]

40. It doesn't matter.

Fact is, it's not to protect indigenous and the trust mechanism still prevents foreign ownership, so the OP was correct, although I'm not sure about the 40% figure.

[mike_c]

46. huh? you just "know" this, or what...?

Several links describing Mexican law and real estate transactions have been posted here, as well as information from folks familiar with things like the ejido protections, but you simply decide that none of it is true or relevant? Do you really believe that all the rest of the world has to conform to what you understand as "ownership" under U.S. law? Sheesh.

[Inland]

48. I don't think the rest of the world has to conform to american law.

Who said it did? Me, I think that Mexico is a separate nation, with separate values, that is entitled to separate laws. The only relevance to me is the debate on immigration, and the effect of ten, twenty, thirty million people of a separate nation with separate values living in the US will have. See post no. 19 above.

[VirtualChicano]

41. No, it is not the same

No, it is not the same.

the coastline clause is part of the resources law, which states that all resources are owned by the gov. in Mexico, the beaches and coast are considered resources. however, foreigners can and do lease the land for up to 99 years at a time.

next, the border clause is obviously because of what happended to Mexico and Mexicans during and after the war with the U.S.

"El Plan de Ayala" was written by Gen. Emialiano Zapata and was incorporated into the Mexican constitution of 1910. this does not allow anyone, foreign or citizen, or the government, to sell off or seize any lands by eminent domain or by any other reason that belongs to Mexico's indigenous people's.

there is much more to El Plan de Ayala, but this part is more pertinent to the topic.

[Inland]

44. But the OP was right.

The fact is, the government of Mexico recognizes that foreign nationals don't have the same interests, goals, values, whatever, as Mexicans. It's relevant to the debate on immigration to the US from Mexico just as it is to immigration from the US to Mexico.

[VirtualChicano]

47. Yes and No

This man is American, like me, a Chicano, http://www.juanhernandez.org/

but i do agree the debate is moot.

btw, what is OP?

[Inland]

49. Original post. Or, Original Poster.

Somebody somewhere has a key to some of the more obscure acronyms.

[VirtualChicano]

53. Thanks

Gracias

[Redstone]

14. Great, more Mexico-bashing! This place is getting to look more like

freerepublic every fucking day.

Redstone

[AzDar]

18. This IS a discussion board, right? Asking a legitimate question

is NOT 'Mexico-bashing', IMHO.

[mondo joe]

20. Is it bashing to note facts?

[The Straight Story]

Well the upside is, less time to bash the US :) (nt)

[QC]

22. Yes, the sanctimonious kneejerkery and the desire to silence viewpoints

with which the loudest posters disagree is very much like what one finds at Freak Republic.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

56. Yes, on BOTH sides.

If you disagree you're a racist, if you agree you are "anti-american" or "anti-labour"

[Cleita]

25. Yes it is. I have to agree.n/t

[VirtualChicano]

32. Well, i get your point but...

Well, i get your point but not really. Alipac and saveourstate have the most racist boards next to stornfront. but atleast stormfront is open about it.

it's not nearly as bad in here.

i have about 17 posts and no one has told me to go get my leaf blower.

[Cleita]

23. For your information there are prohibitions that call for fines

for companies or individuals who hire undocumented workers. They aren't enforced because a loophole was built into them. I posted the links for those who might be interested but it sank like a rock and I got tired of kicking it up. It's on my journal if you are interested.

[mondo joe]

26. Has anyone at the federal level suggested decreasing legal immigration

from Mexico in proportion to the increases in estimated illegals?

[lovuian]

28. I'll add that Non Mexicans have to pay their hospital bills in

cash before leaving or risk imprisonment... is that the same here in America??? Ahhh Mr.Fox seems like we got a one way road here for Mexico...

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Well, one nice thing is I, as an American citizen, can enter Mexico

anytime of the day or night I wish. I just drive or walk across the boarder.

If I want to enter the interior, I can get a visa in about 10 minutes.


That's not the same for Mexicans who want to enter the US.


So I think it is unfair. But not in the way you do.

[mike_c]

38. on that note, it's also worth noting that Mexican immigration officials...

...are uniformly courteous and helpful, even if your Spanish is shaky. Contrast that with the experience of dealing with U.S. immigration officials at the border, even if you carry a U.S. passport. They must be trained to be such pricks.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. However, I've heard that Mexican customs are just as big of

pricks to Mexican nationals as US customs is to US nationals.

It's true though that my most tramatic border crossings are always re-entering the US.

[The_Casual_Observer]

37. The USA takes body blows from countries all over the world

that don't "play fair". But the USA has had such an abundance of everything that is could be more or less absorbed up till now. The Iraq war, outsourcing, and free trade with china seem to have weakened this country to the point that the question of immigration has become a sore point.

[Theodolite]

45. Good thing we cannot buy land there

I think it would be a big mistake to allow Americans to freely buy there. Can you imagine the property flipping craze that would ensue. Anyone who could fog up a mirror would buy a property, then expect the policia to protect their investments and turn out delinquent renters. People with resources would be buying up whole blocks, then bitch up a storm about the high taxes they would pay.

The majority would never be able to buy their own property, their rents would go to US landowners. There would be millions of bitter priced out renters. It seems like the best thing for Mexico is an open border for mexicans, but closed to everyone else. I've heard about a lot of people buying in Baja, I'm not sure how that works. But on the other hand, if they could tax the hell out of the US landowners it would be a great revenue stream for them. Maybe I'm really wrong on this.

[mike_c]

50. much of the market in baja is restricted to the border zone...

...north of San Quintin and to the area around La Paz. A good bit of the land around Bahia de los Angeles seems to be owned by gringos, but that's just my impression, based on the "No Trespassing" signs. I presume the same is true of the east cape and Cabo region, but I never go there so I can't say for sure. There is still an awful lot of open Baja in between, thankfully. Unfortunately, beach property in one of my favorite beach camping areas north of La Paz on the San Evaristo road seems to be showing up on the market at prices clearly aimed at wealthy gringos. Last time I checked it was all still wild and open, but it's been a couple of years and I live in fear of showing up and finding someone's vacation house on my favorite campsite.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

55. And in Iraq, women have fewer and fewer rights...what's your point?

Since when has policy been "but they did it first!!!"?


This country was to be an example for all others. How is that accomplished by emulating the worst parts of other countries?