• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mexico doesnt want its citizens back

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
They work hard. We need them here.

no, they work CHEAP...that's their only benefit. I've worked with Mexicans in the construction industry for well over 20 years. Some are hard workers, while others fit the typical lazy mexican stereotype.

Why the fuck should we give a shit how their local economy handles their return? Box them up and send them ALL back.
 
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: jpeyton
They work hard. We need them here.

When you say it like that, I agree with you. Most of the Mexicans I know, which really isn't many, are hard working decent people. I don't have any problem with having Mexicans come here, I just think it should be done legally. I also think it should be much easier to come here legally.

This is essentially what I agree with. There are tons of Mexicans in my state. Many of them are very hard working and really do not have a problem just doing their thing and assimilating gradually. Most are not educated, but their kids do become educated here and they see how hard their parents work to get what they have even though it may not be much which is a good influence I think. The same cannot be said for a lot of legal Americans which were born and raised here by their American parents. Kind of makes you wonder which ones we should toss across the border... 😉



Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: jpeyton
They work hard. We need them here.

no, they work CHEAP...that's their only benefit. I've worked with Mexicans in the construction industry for well over 20 years. Some are hard workers, while others fit the typical lazy mexican stereotype.

Why the fuck should we give a shit how their local economy handles their return? Box them up and send them ALL back.

It's not that simple anymore. Too many have families and children which were born here. What are we supposed to do? Separate the parents from the kids? We can't do that. I dislike illegal immigration just as much as the next guy for the same reasons, but I am not a fiend either. I do have standards and priorities when it comes to how I believe we should treat people whether they are here legally or not. Something needs to be done to fix the current issues and prevent more incoming illegal immigration, but simply sending them all packing is not the right way to do it.
 
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: babylon5

It's interesting how countries like Russian and China crank up their economy in such short time, while Mexico right next to USA stales as 3rd World-ish that have to depend on others. Really pathetic.

China is going to put the likes of Mexico and India to shame. Heck, we even have areas right here in the U.S. that might as well be their own third-world city states (like Detroit).

Yes. Because third-world states have quality international airports (DTW), first-rate theatres (the Fox), museums, multiple symphony orchestras, and support four major sports franchises as well as having well-maintained roads, available public transportation, and indoor plumbing. :roll:

ZV
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Mexico's problem is corruption. TONS AND TONS OF IT.

Government run industry doesn't help, I suppose that does go hand in hand with corruption though.

After all we are talking about a country where law enforcement is more of a business venture for the upper class than a government service for the population.
 
Originally posted by: Xavier434

It's not that simple anymore. Too many have families and children which were born here. What are we supposed to do? Separate the parents from the kids? We can't do that. I dislike illegal immigration just as much as the next guy for the same reasons, but I am not a fiend either. I do have standards and priorities when it comes to how I believe we should treat people whether they are here legally or not. Something needs to be done to fix the current issues and prevent more incoming illegal immigration, but simply sending them all packing is not the right way to do it.

No, it IS that simple, but bleeding hearts like you insist on making excuses for not deporting them immediately.
The childrenof the illegal immigrants should NOT be granted automatic citizenship. That is NOT what the 14th amendment intended, but since we really didn't have any immigration laws back then...
The entire "anchor baby" statute in the Bill of Rights needs to be amended to exclude such illegal immigrants. Many people believe that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" automatically precludes the children of illegal immigrants, because as illegal immigrants, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The children of LEGAL immigrants should be granted US citizenship if and when the parents of the child applies for citizenship, but they MUST apply for the citizenship for the child. That gives the parents the option of what country the child is a citizen of, it's not decided automatically.

I know families here where a legal immigrant or citizen is married to an illegal immigrant. I feel no compassion for the family should the illegal be deported, after all, they are helping the illegal to commit a crime, and perhaps should be facing criminal charges of their own...(harboring a criminal or some such)
 
Originally posted by: lightstar
we need a huge wall on the border like the great wall of china patrolled 24/7 by guards and dogs

You know, it should say something to your wall supporters that the best example you can come up with is a wall built hundreds of years ago that didn't really work all that well to begin with.

There are tons of modern border disputes around the world, with many countries who would like to prevent people from crossing one way or the other...so surely someone MUST have built a similar wall for a similar purpose. And if not, doesn't that say something?
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Xavier434

It's not that simple anymore. Too many have families and children which were born here. What are we supposed to do? Separate the parents from the kids? We can't do that. I dislike illegal immigration just as much as the next guy for the same reasons, but I am not a fiend either. I do have standards and priorities when it comes to how I believe we should treat people whether they are here legally or not. Something needs to be done to fix the current issues and prevent more incoming illegal immigration, but simply sending them all packing is not the right way to do it.

No, it IS that simple, but bleeding hearts like you insist on making excuses for not deporting them immediately.
The childrenof the illegal immigrants should NOT be granted automatic citizenship. That is NOT what the 14th amendment intended, but since we really didn't have any immigration laws back then...
The entire "anchor baby" statute in the Bill of Rights needs to be amended to exclude such illegal immigrants. Many people believe that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" automatically precludes the children of illegal immigrants, because as illegal immigrants, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The children of LEGAL immigrants should be granted US citizenship if and when the parents of the child applies for citizenship, but they MUST apply for the citizenship for the child. That gives the parents the option of what country the child is a citizen of, it's not decided automatically.

I know families here where a legal immigrant or citizen is married to an illegal immigrant. I feel no compassion for the family should the illegal be deported, after all, they are helping the illegal to commit a crime, and perhaps should be facing criminal charges of their own...(harboring a criminal or some such)

You know, I really have to admire the way you people are so willing to say "fuck the children" in situations like this :roll: Whatever lack of sympathy you might have for illegal immigrants, their kids didn't do anything wrong. Are you THAT angry about illegal immigration that you'd take it out on kids who had no say in what their parents did?
 
"Won't SOMEONE PLEEEZE think about the children?"

Take WHAT out on the children? Send them back to the country of their illegal parents' origin? Deny them citizenship based on their parents' illegal immigration status?

Seems appropriate to me.

If a family brings their children here illegally, do they get the same bleeding-heart sympathy from you? Should school districts be REQUIRED to educate the children of illegal immigrants? Should the school districts be required to fund classes in a language other than English for these illegal children? Should we taxpayers be required to pay for such education of illegal immigrants?

 
Originally posted by: Rainsford

You know, I really have to admire the way you people are so willing to say "fuck the children" in situations like this :roll: Whatever lack of sympathy you might have for illegal immigrants, their kids didn't do anything wrong. Are you THAT angry about illegal immigration that you'd take it out on kids who had no say in what their parents did?

Yes 🙂

I'm going to stretch an analogy here but I'll tie it back in so bear with me ..

When the legal system (police and prosecutors, I'm lumping them together) try to convict someone of a crime based on evidence that was obtained illegally (no warrant, etc), the judge will dismiss the charges on the idea that because evidence was obtained illegally, it cannot be used against the defendant because it is the "fruit of a poisonous tree" - an illegal act cannot be used to produce a legal result.

I use that analogy here in the same way - the parents arrived here illegally, flaunting the laws of the system that they now want to protect them because they produced a child on American soil. In my view the children are the same "fruit of the poisonous tree" - their parents illegal act of being here should not be used to produce the legal result of their child automatically getting citizenship which would then pull their parents along with them.

Please don't misunderstand. I am COMPLETELY in favor of immigrants coming to America - LEGALLY. I'm all for programs that help them become better citizens and productive members of society - LEGALLY.

But I have ZERO sympathy and compassion for those who jump the border and then expect to reap the benefits of living and working here, including the children of these illegals.

As for the OP and the idea that the Mexican government does not want nor can they handle their citizens coming back home - tough shit. If it comes down to it, and believe me I hope it never does, I would even be in favor of putting up a "Berlin Wall" style border - land mines, razor wire, manned gun turrets with permission to fire, the whole works - to add a degree of control to the illegal immigration from the south.

Would it stop it? no, nothing ever will until the Mexican government reforms itself and makes its own country a desirable place to be. But I'll be damned if I make it easy for them to say "I don't like my own country so I'll just come live in yours. Oh and you should accommodate my language and cultural needs in doing so cause, well .. cause you're a butthead if you don't"

 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: lightstar
we need a huge wall on the border like the great wall of china patrolled 24/7 by guards and dogs

You know, it should say something to your wall supporters that the best example you can come up with is a wall built hundreds of years ago that didn't really work all that well to begin with.

There are tons of modern border disputes around the world, with many countries who would like to prevent people from crossing one way or the other...so surely someone MUST have built a similar wall for a similar purpose. And if not, doesn't that say something?

Link

^ There's one I've personally seen.

And I've seen others as well. They do exist.

Fern

 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: lightstar
we need a huge wall on the border like the great wall of china patrolled 24/7 by guards and dogs

You know, it should say something to your wall supporters that the best example you can come up with is a wall built hundreds of years ago that didn't really work all that well to begin with.

There are tons of modern border disputes around the world, with many countries who would like to prevent people from crossing one way or the other...so surely someone MUST have built a similar wall for a similar purpose. And if not, doesn't that say something?


Korean DMZ

Could just make one of these and get it over with, as it seems to work.

*just posting options, not trying to be a prick*
 
Korean DMZ is a good example border between countries can be secured.

That is, unless you're a bleeding heart pro-Illegals, than you want to argue with reality staring into your face.
 
What's this shit about protecting "children of illegals"? Why should I, or anyone else, give a flying fuck? If a family man kills his neighbor, do we say "the children did nothing wrong, we can't send this man to jail as his children will be punished"? Yes, there are repercussions to breaking the law. These people have broken it and must be punished in some way. Making them start over in their home country is not cruel nor unusual, and is a very fitting punishment.
 
Originally posted by: ScottyB
What's this shit about protecting "children of illegals"? Why should I, or anyone else, give a flying fuck? If a family man kills his neighbor, do we say "the children did nothing wrong, we can't send this man to jail as his children will be punished"? Yes, there are repercussions to breaking the law. These people have broken it and must be punished in some way. Making them start over in their home country is not cruel nor unusual, and is a very fitting punishment.

sounds good on paper, but i would like to see a study of what happens to children in this situation,

also, i think that even with non-illegals i would like to see more rehabilitation and less meaningless jail time
 
Originally posted by: ScottyB
What's this shit about protecting "children of illegals"? Why should I, or anyone else, give a flying fuck? If a family man kills his neighbor, do we say "the children did nothing wrong, we can't send this man to jail as his children will be punished"? Yes, there are repercussions to breaking the law. These people have broken it and must be punished in some way. Making them start over in their home country is not cruel nor unusual, and is a very fitting punishment.

When a family man kills someone then usually the courts take either transfer the legal custody of the child to the mother or transfers custody to a foster home.

Its not like the govt can say "why should we give a flying fuck"

 
The case of Eric Antonio Uc-Cahun, now 19, a native of Mexico, is the second in which a youthful offender protected from deportation in San Francisco has later been arrested for a violent crime as an adult.

The San Mateo County stabbing was especially vicious, authorities said - a top prosecutor said the victim had been "gutted, like you gut a pig."

Uc-Cahun's history of youth offenses in the city was similar to that of Edwin Ramos, a 21-year-old Salvadoran native facing triple-murder charges in connection with the slayings in June of a San Francisco man and two of his sons on an Excelsior district street.

"How many of these people are there who were the beneficiaries of this process?" asked Joseph Russoniello, the U.S. attorney for Northern California, who has been critical of the city's practice of shielding immigrants from deportation.

"This is what happens when the best intentions are misapplied," Russoniello said. "If there was any justification for this program, cases like this certainly undermine that expectation."

Both Uc-Cahun and Ramos were in San Francisco's juvenile justice system at least twice during Mayor Gavin Newsom's time in office, Ramos for an assault and an attempted robbery he committed when he was 17, Uc-Cahun in connection with assaults and other crimes for which he was arrested in 2006.

Juvenile justice officials protected both Ramos and Uc-Cahun from federal authorities under their interpretation of San Francisco's sanctuary law, which bars the city from cooperating in U.S. efforts to hunt down illegal immigrants.

However, City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office concluded last month that nothing in the law prevented San Francisco from turning over suspected youth felons to federal immigration authorities. Newsom has since ordered juvenile justice officials to provide information on felons suspected of being illegal immigrants to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Since the policy change, more than 50 juvenile offenders have been referred to federal immigration officials, according to juvenile probation authorities.

No more, spokesman hopes
Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for the mayor, said Wednesday that he could not comment about any juvenile records. However, he said, "because of the mayor's change of policy, we are optimistic that tragedies like this one can be avoided in future."

Uc-Cahun's attorney in his adult case, Chris Morales, said his client left his parents in Mexico and came to the United States to live with siblings about four years ago.

Morales would not comment on whether Uc-Cahun was in this country legally, but federal authorities have placed an immigration hold on him since his arrest in the San Mateo County case, indicating that they believe he is not a legal resident.

Uc-Cahun's criminal history as a juvenile dates at least from Aug. 13, 2006, when San Francisco police reports show that he was arrested along with two other suspected gang members in the assault on a man at Dolores Park. The victim was hit in the head and threatened with a gun after the group demanded to know whether he was a gang member, according to the reports.

Uc-Cahun did not cooperate with police, refusing even to say where he lived, authorities said. The police report on the attack says Uc-Cahun was a Sureño gang member known as "Tweety" who had "numerous prior contacts" with law enforcement.

Uc-Cahun, then 17, was taken to juvenile hall and eventually was found to have committed felony assault. A San Francisco Juvenile Court placed him on probation and freed him from juvenile hall.

On Oct. 18, 2006, shortly after his release, Uc-Cahun was arrested again, this time for allegedly being part of a group that accosted a stranger on the street and ripped a chain from his neck.

He spent four months in juvenile hall before being found responsible for a single charge of felony assault. He turned 18 by the time he was freed in February 2007 and put on a year's probation.

Arrest as an adult
Uc-Cahun was still on probation May 22, 2007, when he and several other suspected gang members allegedly jumped a man waiting for a ride on the 2700 block of Bayshore Boulevard in Daly City, said Steve Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney for San Mateo County.

Three men approached, accused the man of being a rival gang member and started beating him with a broomstick that eventually broke, Wagstaffe said. Other members of the group stripped the man of his jacket, and Uc-Cahun allegedly used a box cutter with a 2-inch blade to slash his abdomen open in two places.

"He basically gutted him, like you gut a pig to get to the meat," Wagstaffe said. The man survived and later identified Uc-Cahun as the man with the box cutter.

Uc-Cahun was arrested in September 2007 and has been held without bail since. In March, following a preliminary hearing, a judge ordered Uc-Cahun to stand trial.

The victim, whom The Chronicle is not identifying at the request of prosecutors, testified at a preliminary hearing that, "I pulled up my shirt and I seen my guts were hanging out of my stomach.

"My friends wanted to get them back," he said, but "all I did was lay down, (and say) 'Man, take me to the hospital.' "

Suspicious letter
A month later, a still-jailed Uc-Cahun allegedly wrote a letter to a friend that provided the name and address of the victim and suggesting that the friend "take care of things," Wagstaffe said. San Francisco police executing a search warrant in May at a house suspected of being used by gang members found the letter, he said.

Uc-Cahun was charged with witness intimidation along with attempted murder, robbery and other gang-related counts.

Morales said other lawyers represented Uc-Cahun when he was a juvenile. As an adult, he said, his client appeared to be a successful participant in a San Mateo County jail education program. Authorities put him in isolation after the letter was discovered, the attorney said.

"He had redeeming qualities," Morales said. "He was doing well in custody. Now it looks like he did a stupid thing (in allegedly writing the letter) out of desperation."

Russoniello said the arrests of Uc-Cahun and Ramos raise the question of whether other juvenile offenders who were kept from deportation in San Francisco went on to become criminal suspects as adults.

"These attacks demonstrate that these people are acting with impunity because they have little to fear," Russoniello said.

Ballard said officials are conducting a "top to bottom" review of practices under the sanctuary city ordinance to make sure San Francisco is complying with federal and state laws related to immigrant felony offenders.

"These are complex questions," Ballard said. "It's not just one ordinance, it's many, many years, going back to 1985, of policies made in many ways. There's a lot of excavation to be done."
 
Hey remember how every state that has a major crackdown on illegals has odd economic failures in the same areas that have the most catches? It's almost as if cheap labor is essential and this is just a retarded wedge issue to keep rednecks saying THIS IS ARE COUNTRY and using them as an excuse to not get a job themselves and stop leeching off the taxes of the northern states
 
(the south sucks and mexicans work harder and cheaper and are more grateful than any citizen so I don't really blame people for hiring them over some texan that shows up drunk every day and spits tabacco on the floor)
 
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Illegal immigrants commit crimes at rates no higher than the U.S. citizenry.

Get...over...it.

That sure doesn't seem to be the case here.

Nearly every day, there's some major crime or another, with Mexicans arrested and charged. Are they ALL Illegal? Probably not, but a large percentage are. Kahleeforneeya's prisons are FULL of illegals. Some estimates say as many as 50% of the Kahleeforneeya prison population are illegal immigrants.
 
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Illegal immigrants commit crimes at rates no higher than the U.S. citizenry.

Get...over...it.

Aren't they all committing a crime by just being here. That would mean 100% are criminals hence the term "illegal".......:laugh:

 
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
(the south sucks and mexicans work harder and cheaper and are more grateful than any citizen so I don't really blame people for hiring them over some texan that shows up drunk every day and spits tabacco on the floor)


How many stereotypes can you fit into one post? Geez......:roll:
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD

That sure doesn't seem to be the case here.

Nearly every day, there's some major crime or another, with Mexicans arrested and charged. Are they ALL Illegal? Probably not, but a large percentage are. Kahleeforneeya's prisons are FULL of illegals. Some estimates say as many as 50% of the Kahleeforneeya prison population are illegal immigrants.

If those numbers are remotely accurate I can't imagine why CA prison officials aren't saving the taxpayers a pile of money and deporting them. I mean, why should the taxpayers pay to keep them locked up with 3 squares and better healthcare than the folks outside when they're here illegally to start with?

 
Back
Top