Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would illegals be more satisfied if America adopted some rules from the Mexican constitution? It's a vaild question since they seem upset about the way the US handles immigration at various protests.
Here are some examples:
The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country's political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country." Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."
(there go the protests...)
The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states (no more owning ANYTHING near the border or Coast)
The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32
The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.
The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states (no more owning ANYTHING near the border or Coast)
Not true anymore.
Besides, it is the freedom that is guaranteed in our constitution that allows immigrants to better their economic status.
And then there is Australia;
Quote:
The Australian Constitution is the most archaic and the least amended in the world.
It was framed by members of State Parliaments in the 1890s on the United States model of the 1780s. The American model has been altered more often and more extensively and more recently than the Australian.
A record time has now elapsed since the people were last given the opportunity to amend the Constitution.
They can only amend it if the Federal Parliament passes a bill and the Federal Government presents the bill to them at a referendum.
The Australian Parliament has fewer functions than any other national parliament in the world, including those in such federal systems as the United States, Canada and West Germany.
In what other industrial country has the national parliament so restricted a right to pass laws on industrial matters, restrictive practices and interest rates, companies, marketing and transport?
Ours is the only federal system where some matters are beyond the legislative competence of the Federal Parliament and all the State Parliaments acting in concert. The Constitution's archaism and anomalies and inadequacies become more burdensome and frustrating as Australia becomes a greater trading and industrial country.
Hi Ghost
The point is that Mexico's law's (as far as illegal immigrants go) seem to be a lot more unfriendly then the USA's. Yet illegals come from Mexico and get upset about America's immigration law's. Savy??
And Hello Greatbasinguide!
Well looks like we are both wrong on something because Australia's government and constitution are based on the Brittish Wesminster system, we are still part of the Brittish Commonwealth and it has nothing whatsoever to do with America's version of Government
I don't know where 1/2 of the stuff you came up with orignated from? Very interesting though!
Your thread is going to go nowhere, AZaussie---because the US is a western, liberal, protestant-based secular society.....(so is Australia)....and, as such, it is capable of feeling tremendous guilt and sensitivity to criticism.
Mexico, along with most of the rest of the world, experiences no such guilt. You can criticize all day long if you want, but it will not make any impression. They just don't feel that sort of guilt, and you're not going to embarrass them.
Wouldn't it be easier to criticize the US? At least we'll listen !.....
Fine Macmeal, I'll criticize the US then! The US has no good Thai restaurants!
(well at least Phoenix)...
As an American, that hurts me deeply. I feel bad, wish I could change that fact, and will go to bed depressed tonight. And I'm embarrassed for my benighted country that it doesn't meet your expectations....SO THERE.
Now, you wouldn't have gotten that kind of response in Algeria, or Bangladesh, or El Salvador, would you? Tell THEM something's wrong, and they'd just grin at you.....and probably tell you to go home.
Good night--hope I can sleep...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
