Talk:Immigration to Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Title

The title "Immigration to Mexico" for this page is very misleading. This page is not talking about immigration into Mexico in a historical, quantatative, or comprehensive sense. Instead this page deals with contemporary immigrants or contemporary Mexicans that still selfidentify as "immigrants". In the case of Salma Hayek, I noticed that the we gave her the "immigrant" label although she identifies herself only as Mexican. I think the problem here is that we are applying our understanding of immigration to the US and the history of those immigrant relations and a US understanding of self identity. I would argue that Mexico was and is a much more successful 'melting pot', be it through aggressive/repressive or liberal policies and social relations. Thus, simply dealing with populations whom we label or self identify as immigrants or of immigrant descent will not result in a meaningful understanding of immigration to Mexico. --Cesruiz1 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

VERY VAGUE and imprecise. It does not make a clear case linking the title of the page and its substance. Perhaps because of the problem stated above. Also, the claim "Mexico did not receive as many immigrants as did US, Canada..." needs a citation and some quantitative figures to back this claim up. --Cesruiz1 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

This article should have the same information as this article [1] to provide consistent information within the Wikis. M P M 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important People from so and so country

If somebody is going to add an "important people" from some country, please add people who has contributed to Mexico or to the world in something. Adding an actor/actress of dubious talent and transient fame, just because he/she was born in such country, is not good.Tesi1700 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

"Mexico has extremely strict immigration law for both legal and illegal immigrants." "Certain legal rights are waived in the case of foreigners, such as the right to a deportation hearing or other legal motions."

Needs sources. Everything else has a source so should this.

"In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may make a citzen's arrest on the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."

I read the Constituion from which you are getting your information and this applies to Mexican citizens. The Mexican Courts are the ones that should interpret who else this applies to.

Try to cover the topic Immigration to Mexico, as in the actual immigrants in Mexico, instead of inserting random lines from the Mexican Constitution. By the way, if you do not agree with something/don't like the way somebody words something it is not vandalism. M P M 02:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New changes

"In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may make a citizen's arrest on the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."

I removed it because it was ambiguous as to who it applies to. The Mexican Constitution never states anyone explicitly. Yes, the law is harsh but who does it apply to? Someone either has to one) clarify who it applies to (illegals/tourists/immigrants/citizens? who? if it applies to all then state it but provide a source) or 2) provide a source stating it applies only to foreigners and not Mexican citizens. If there is a problem with this bring it up in talk don't reinsert it. I already stated why I removed it.

From what I have read, there are plenty of sources online stating that Mexico has a strict policy on illegals, well at least on the ones from Central America, but I haven't found anything on legal immigration. I don't think anyone can make an assumption with Mexico has extremely strict immigration law for both legal and illegal immigrants. We need to base this on facts. It sort of contradicts the presence of legal foreigners especially the 1,000,000+ Americans. If legal immigration policy was that strict wouldn't Mexico be more like Japan?

Also, I added a brief intro on immigration to Mexico and included a list, though not exhaustive, of immigrant groups. I also added the names of two individuals, for each immigrant group, who are either immigrants themselves or descendants of immigrants. I added the section Immigrant Policies which includes most of the stuff from the previous version. I'll work on these sections some more but feel free to continue expanding it if you are more knowledgable in the area.

This doesn't make any sense The Mexican constitution restricts non-citizens or foreign born persons [4], Certain legal rights are waived in the case of foreigners, such as the right to a deportation hearing or other legal motions. Is it suppose to be one sentence or did something get cut-off in the first part? I left it as is. M P M 08:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So your saying that all of the 1 million+ American immigrants in Mexico are legal? Wheres your source? I've talked to some americans who live in Tijuana, which is a popular city for Americans because of the cheap rent and the proximity to San Diego, and many of them have said that many of the other Americans in that city don't even bother to get a visa (or renew the visa's they did have) because the Mexican government doesn't enforce its immigration laws on its northern border.Mrsmith93309 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FLAGRANTE DELICTO

The act of committing a crime. When a person is arrested flagrante delicto - while committing a crime - the only evidence required to convict him is to prove that fact. Why do you keep removing article 16 from my edits? How would you feel if at the next illegal immigrant march anyone that claimed to be in this country illegally was detained by any legal citzen, arrested, and deported without trial? FLAGRANTE DELICTO does not have to specify which law because it applies to all law.

I removed because it might exclude immigrants and we don't know whether that is the case or not. Weren't blacks excluded from some of the basic freedoms of the Constitution (i.e. the right to vote)? For certain articles, it might be the same case for foreigners. There is more than one way to interpret the law. I don't think illegal immigrants are given a trial in the U.S. Well, the news hasn't mentioned any with all those recent round-ups and deportations. M P M 08:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It is dangerous to quote laws and assume that they are enforced as written. The U.S. Constitution says that the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed, but in practice those citizens are not permitted to own machine guns or nuclear bombs. Many nations have elements in their constitutions which are not enforced. The custom of citizen's arrest is part of common law, but I doubt it is used widely in any country. Though not mentioned in the constitution, U.S. citizens may arrest lawbreakers, but so what? How many U.S.-related crime articles should mention that? My guess is roughly one article. In all, unless the Mexican Constitution mentions "flagrante delicto" in reference to immigration, or unless we have a source which connects it to immigration, then I don't see why it should be in this article. There are plenty of real issues to cover. -Will Beback 08:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration Policy Section

I am leaving all the information as is. The paragraph below deals with immigration policy itself so I moved it to its own section without removing any information. That shouldn't bother anyone at all. I am only organizing and improving the page.

"Mexico has extremely strict immigration law for both legal and illegal immigrants. Certain legal rights are waived in the case of foreigners, such as the right to a deportation hearing or other legal motions. In cases of flagrante delicto, such as a person declaring they entered the country illegally, any citzen may make a citzen's arrest on the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities. Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. [2]. Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. Foreigners can serve in the military only during wartime [3]."

I put it under the subsection Immigration Policy because this whole paragraph, well most of it, reflects that. This article only needs a brief intro at the top describing Immigration to Mexico not not an entire paragraph about Immigration Policy.

My previous edit was meant to improve and organize the entire page in a neat and concise manner. I am only trying to provide clear and organized information to the readers. Articles like Immigration_to_the_United_States or Immigration in Brazil both have brief intros about immigration/waves of immigration and sections about immigrant groups, statistics, policies, etc. So there shouldn't be a problem regarding the organization of this page.

M P M 08:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

your changes are tiresome at best. i will now create more pages on a completely different topic in hopes that you and Will won't follow me with your endless debate. Darkstar1st 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Languages?

Why does this article morph from immigration to languages about half way down? I recently updated "Italians" but note most of what follows that section is about languages and not immigration. Mariokempes 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican immigration and citizenship policies should be added

Mexico's restrictive policies on immigration, running for office if you're from an immigrant family, etc. should be added; they are quite interesting, especially when contrasted with what they demand of other nations. A2Kafir (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Central America and USA

I don't understand why this section makes no mention of immigrants from Central America. Data on immigration to Mexico produced by the Mexican govermnemt shows that the vast majority of immigrants to Mexico are from neighboring Central American countries, especially Guatemala and El Salvador. It is not made up of mainly white European people. Also, the author of this section does not show that the vast majority of the American-born population (at about 99%, from my research not on Wikipedia) are the American-born children of Mexican parents. This section seems to take a pro-European/White stance favoring only discussing European and other White immigration rather the the actual facts. Saopabs83 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)