[Delta]

Illegal immigration should be stopped and i personally feel that Mexico should exercise better control over its borders and its people. If you wish to state your own opinions you are more than welcome.

[Andres]

Mexico cannot stop any of it's citizens from crossing the border. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state:

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Source

This, of course, does not mean that mexicans have the right to enter the US, but it does mean that the mexican government cannot stop them from trying.

[PBVBROOK]

This, of course, does not mean that mexicans have the right to enter the US, but it does mean that the mexican government cannot stop them from trying.

What?

American citizens are prohibited from leaving the US without a passport.

All governments regulate the coming and going of their citizens. Mexico could do the same.

It could easily regulate HOW the person is allowed to leave. It is illegal to enter the US other than through a legitimate port of entry. Technically it is illegal to leave from other than one as well.

Mexico could require that its citizens only leave the country from certain places. With the US border patrol waiting for them this would be a tremendous asset to us.

The fact is that they don't want to. The money wired to Mexico from the US by slave laborers is a big chunk of thier economy.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

While you are on the subject of this document, care to talk about a few Islamic countries.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a farce. It will never be enforced. It is applied only for political theater and it lacks the force of law within countries.

It is more honored in the breach than in the observance.


But lets impose food, travel and commerce sanctions on all who violate it. OK?

[Andres]

American citizens are prohibited from leaving the US without a passport.

It would be a violation of human rights if the US stops any of its citizens from leaving if there is no pending legal case against them. Up until recently, the US did not even require it's citizens to present a passport on return when traveling to certain countries.

And no, US citizens are not prohibited from leaving the country without a passport, they are restricted from entering without one.

Technically it is illegal to leave from other than one as well.

Technically it is not, nor can it be.

Mexico could require that its citizens only leave the country from certain places

The mexican government has no legal right to do such a thing.

While you are on the subject of this document, care to talk about a few Islamic countries.

This is a thread about illegal immigrants to the US, with special emphasis to mexican illegal immigrants. Practices within Islamic countries are irrelevant to this thread.

It is applied only for political theater and it lacks the force of law within countries.

By adopting the declaration, it becomes law within any signatory country.

[PBVBROOK]

Let's start here.

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

As I said.

"It is applied only for political theater and it lacks the force of law within countries."

This is a declaration. Not international law. It is not a treaty.

It formed part of the basis for the ICCPR. (a very different document BTW). Here is what the Senate said.

The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with a number of reservations, understandings, and declarations. In particular, the Senate declared that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing." 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-84 (1992). The Senate stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts." S. Exec. Rep., No. 102-23, at 15 (1992). Where a treaty or covenant is not self-executing, and where Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation, no private right of action is created by ratification. Sei Fujii v. State 38 Cal.2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952); also see Buell v. Mitchell 274 F.3d 337 (6th Cir., 2001) (discussing ICCPR's relationship to death penalty cases, citing to other ICCPR cases). Thus while the ICCPR is binding upon the United States as a matter of international law, it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation.

I will not respond to your assertions that soverign countries have 'no right to....". Soverign countries can do with their citizens pretty much whatever they please. Just as we restrict entry into the US and reserve to ourselves sole descretion as to what constitutes a refugee. No International law applies. I travel extensively in Mexico. They have strict entry and exit requirements.

Entry into both Mexico and the US at other than a designated port of entry is illegal.

US law provides for exit inspection of both US and foreign nationals. This is done at designated ports of entry.

You really need to get your facts right.

By adopting the declaration, it becomes law within any signatory country.

Just plain and simply untrue in any sense.

[Andres]

Entry into both Mexico and the US at other than a designated port of entry is illegal.

In Mexico, exit is not illegal.

I will not respond to your assertions that soverign countries have 'no right to....".

Funny how it is partly that principle on which your country is founded upon.

US law provides for exit inspection of both US and foreign nationals.

What law would someone be infringing upon if he was to take his boat from somewhere in the US and sail into international waters, without carrying merchandise of course?

Just plain and simply untrue in any sense.

I'll rephrase then. In Mexico, article 133 of the constitution gives precedence to adopted international treaties, including human rights treaties, over local laws. That there is corruption and human rights are often violated, does not mean that it is legal to do so.

Being that Mexico is no longer a dictatorship it would not be acceptable to restrict the movement of people. The government having no right to deny me movement in public property.

[PBVBROOK]

OK. Step by step

What law would someone be infringing upon if he was to take his boat from somewhere in the US and sail into international waters, without carrying merchandise of course?

Strawman. This doesn't apply. He would not be entering another country. The US reserves the legal right to restrict its nationals from traveling to destinations it deems inappropriate. And to inspect all vehicles leaving or entering the country. So does Mexico. And both countries can restrict where this might happen.

I'll rephrase then. In Mexico, article 133 of the constitution gives precedence to adopted international treaties, including human rights treaties, over local laws. That there is corruption and human rights are often violated, does not mean that it is legal to do so.

Try again. Wrong as usual. Here is Article 133 of the Mexican constitution:

Article 133. This Constitution, the laws of the Congress of the Union that emanate therefrom, and all treaties that have been made and shall be made in accordance therewith by the President of the Republic, with the approval of the Senate, shall be the supreme law of the whole Union. The judges of each State shall conform to the said Constitution, the laws, and treaties, in spite of any contradictory provisions that may appear in the constitutions or laws of the States

Point one. There is no Human Rights Treaty so this does not apply. The document to which you refer is NOT a treaty.

Point two: If you actually read the Mexican Constitution you would have come across this article.

Article 11. Everyone has the right to enter and leave the Republic, to travel through its territory and to change his residence without necessity of a letter of security, passport, safe-conduct or any other similar requirement. The exercise of this right shall be subordinated to the powers of the judiciary, in cases of civil or criminal liability, and to those of the administrative authorities insofar as concerns the limitations imposed by the laws regarding emigration, immigration and public health of the country, or in regard to undesirable aliens resident in the country.[/quote]

As you can see the Mexican Constitution SPECIFICALLY subordinates the right of free travel to regulations and laws governing emigration and immigration to "administrative authorities". Or to put it more simply, they reserve the right to control who enters AND WHO LEAVES in their very constitution. It is a right but it is subject to legal control.

I won't post the article that says that all treaties are subordinate to the constution as that goes without saying. Besides. You are not referring to a treaty so in many ways this argument is silly.

Your statement:

In Mexico, exit is not illegal.

Actually as you can see from the above it may very well be illegal. That would be up to judicial and administrative authorities to determine who may or may not leave.


You are under the mistaken impression that this Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a treaty. It is not. It was never intended to be. It is, by international law, a nice sentiment but nothing else.

For the Record. I know of no Constitution in the world that subordinates itself to international treaty. That would be absurd.

[Delta]

Don't you need like a legitimate passport and visa to cross over to another nation? If they were illegal they can't go over without the proper paperwork.

[Andres]

Strawman. This doesn't apply. He would not be entering another country. The US reserves the legal right to restrict its nationals from traveling to destinations it deems inappropriate.

Of course it applies, it establishes whether the US can prevent a citizen from leaving the country.

And to inspect all vehicles leaving or entering the country. So does Mexico. And both countries can restrict where this might happen.

Which would support the allegation that they cannot stop someone walking across the border.

Try again. Wrong as usual. Here is Article 133 of the Mexican constitution:

The article is taken to mean that international treaties ratified by the senate, supersede state or federal law in case of contradiction. Read here if you can understand spanish.

Point one. There is no Human Rights Treaty so this does not apply. The document to which you refer is NOT a treaty.

No, the declaration is not a treaty, but it was later turned into a treaty as you pointed in your second post. Specifically, in article 12 section 2 of the ICCPR, the right to exit the country remains.

Or to put it more simply, they reserve the right to control who enters AND WHO LEAVES in their very constitution.

Those conditions mean that they can stop you from leaving if you have a legal case pending, or something similar. The mexican authorities cannot stop you from leaving if you have no obligations pending.

For the Record. I know of no Constitution in the world that subordinates itself to international treaty. That would be absurd.

It is not absurd. What is the point of a country entering into a treaty if it is not willing to fulfill its obligations in it. I imagine it is the same in the US, why else would the ratification have had reservations, if it is not because it carries the weight of law. But you seem to be taking it as if the UN would write a document and it becomes law in Mexico, the senate has to ratify it.

[PBVBROOK]

Sorry Andres.

You are so far out in left field that you are scratching to make sense.

You have constructed a fine internationalist view which does not exist.

I am through playing lawyer with you. The bottom line is that your assertion that no country has control of emigration as well as immigration is absurd.

You refuse to read the documents so what is the point. Others here can read them.

And for the record I do speak Spanish fluently. Have since childhood.

[Andres]

I am through playing lawyer with you. The bottom line is that your assertion that no country has control of emigration as well as immigration is absurd.

Now, that is a strawman argument. I specifically said in my first post that mexicans do not have the right to enter the US illegally.

As for playing the lawyer. Did you read the link I provided? It specifically said, that international treaties ratified by the mexican Senate supersede state and federal law (if you want, just google: articulo 133 mexico to see that this is so). And being that leaving the country is a human right it is not absurd to think that Mexico has very little control over emigration.

You refuse to read the documents so what is the point.

What documents?

[capndoncarnage]

Illegal immigration should be stopped and I personally feel that Mexico should exercise better control over its borders and its people. If you wish to state your own opinions you are more than welcome

I just see it as a labor shift in the globalized world. Anyhow, I think it's silly to restrict immigration of people who live right next to us. Communities where I live have been traditionally Mexican for generations, and I see a lot of the immigration policies forced on us as being from outsiders from other states. Also,there isn't a large Native Arizona population in Arizona, so a lot of our state government policies are birthed from people who have not traditionally come from Arizona. That's just my opinion.