It doesn’t…
By what mechanism? it would be scandalous. You can’t just refuse to take back your own citizens when you have an extradition treaty with the country in question. nor can you render them stateless.
And if Mexico does have enough problems, maybe they should stop losing such valuable dreamers across the border.
Illegal? No, no they would not. They have fully militarised borders. Mexico acts with utter hypocrisy on this issue and it is well documented.
If Mexico doesn’t recognize them as Mexicans but as Americans, they aren’t stateless. Mexico could delay any repatriation while it verifies they were born in Mexico.
Well, the same could have been said of the Irish and Ireland, Chinese and China, Italians and Italy, Jews and the various countries they were leaving, etc. Americans didn’t want any of them either. But most Americans don’t want to admit that the lands where there ancestors came from were shitholes and their ancestors didn’t stay to fix them.
Did I write illegal? I ain’t no gringo so I would be fine.
I don’t know if Mexico is being hypocritical by being tough on immigration, legal or illegal. Have they said the US should have unprotected borders? If anything it’s regressive leftists who have a double standard when judging both countries.
Those were departures where the quality of life was significantly more aligned. Ireland wasn’t massively divergent in terms of QoL than say a rural tenement farmer. The exception being the famine. it also does not justify any prospective legal policy as you are not bound by past circumstances by your ancestors legal framework.
Incorrect on the first point. Mexico recognising them as US citizens has precisely 0 effect. In the second case,Mexico would be justifiably pilloried and Trump would have the excuse to tear up any agreement with him he wishes. They could, but they’d be shooting themselves in the foot.
1 Like
They have produced documents encouraging a border hop, and complain enough about it besides. So I wouldn’t consider them as having clean hands on this issue.
EDIT:
Pamphlet source.
1 Like
Yes, and we all know it’s a nation run by reasonable people.
I don’t precisely see your point. They could, hypothetically do anything any rogue state could do. I don’t see that they would.
What they would do would also not prevent the USA from detaining and deporting them, nor would it prevent said people from self-deporting.
1 Like
But does the Mexican government explicitly say the US should not be as serious as they are when it comes to immigration?
I don’t see that that matters, to be perfectly frank.
EDIT: and certainly Vincente Fox harangues the US on it, and he was the President.
None of that has anything to do with anything. You said that Mexico should try and hold onto the “Dreamers” since it has problems. Those European countries, including Ireland, were shitholes with problems (problems that the people could do nothing about since they were imposed upon them by stronger nations and governments) so those who could leave, abandoned ship.
I don’t follow Mexican politics so I honestly don’t know what they say with regard to our immigration policies. So if they say we should have more lax standards than they have then yes, they are hypocrites. I get the feeling they think we are idiots for being as open as we are to immigrants, legal and otherwise.
Quite possibly. I am not Mexican, so I can’t speak to it.
If the logic holds that they are a benefit, then perhaps they should have. If they are not a benefit, then I can’t see why an amnesty should be granted. If they are a benefit, then Mexico will do better with them back.
It is in the purview of the US government to kick you out if you aren’t a citizen.
EDIT: Additionally, the Atlantic is a better barrier than none for stemming a flow. The USA could have controlled it if it so wished.
If they are a benefit NOW is not the same as letting them leave in the first place. Also, is it what is best for Mexico or the actual individuals in question? Something else to consider is that the US invested in them by providing them with an education, healthcare, etc. Why should we give that to Mexico for free?
Many Americans wished they had. England wasn’t the only country to have signs that read no Irish, no blacks no dogs. What a “country” wants and what its citizens want are not always the same thing.
They did so frequently. Just not in that period. There was a moratorium on Chinese immigration, for instance.
Nor is the anti-illegal argument a per se anti-immigration argument. It is an aspect of it, to be sure, but it isn’t the sole issue.
Why should you, in perpetuity, allow a lawbreaker to benefit from breaking the law?
Certainly DACA recipients are potentially inadvertent lawbreakers (although the vetting for DACA entry seems to have been remarkably sloppy) but illegals in general are where they are by merit of illegal actions.
Also, just because you make an investment doesn’t mean you’ll see a return. They may be a net drain in perpetuity. In which case you’d be wise to not keep them, regardless of what you have spent thus far.