Immigration - November 2006

who are in the USA....(do note that I am saying Mexican nationals because MEXICANS make up 96% of all the ILLEGALS in the USA). I dont like them and would love to see them gone one way or the other. What means are used is OK by me. I love the Legals from any part of the world who are in the USA but not the ILLEGALS.
What should USA do to fix this issue........there has been tons of talk but its all smoke and politics as usual. what would you do if you had to run the show to get rid of the illegals..........
Please do tell your views and how would you solve the ILLEGAL immigration issue........if you were the "BIG CHIEF" calling the shots.

2006-11-02 03:53:52 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-02 03:48:16 · 5 answers · asked by rosamar m 1

Where did the immigrants come from

2006-11-02 03:11:18 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

stay in the country.

2006-11-02 03:09:45 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Two years ago nobody cared, now the Mexican flag is raised on a single flagpole in riots, and the Archie Bunker types are all steamed up with racist rhetoric.

2006-11-02 03:04:48 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

He's in the Dominican Republic. We'll live here for 2-3 years to save up money, and then move to D.R. where I won't have to work. (Who's complaining?) Here are the Visa choices I can think of:
1) If I get married in the D.R., would it take forever to get him here afterwards?
2) If we used a K-1 (Fiancé)Visa, would that take even longer to get him here?
3) Should I just forget all that and go for a Visitor's Visa (whatever form that is) to get him here with no separation time?

Thanking you in advance

2006-11-02 02:50:33 · 7 answers · asked by ? 6

2006-11-02 02:39:52 · 14 answers · asked by Ændru 5

usa says kenya has the risk of terrorists it tells its people not to come to kenya but they have increased in numberss..why did it not issue such when spain had bombs in the trian or uk when they were hit.what do i read here?pls yahoo comm.explain to me why all mpeople are against us

2006-11-02 02:19:20 · 8 answers · asked by ngai h 1

Their political ads are often misleading..."addressing immigration concerns" does not necessarily mean NO AMNESTY
See how your senators & representatives actually vote...before you cast your ballot
http://www.numbersusa.com
NO SPAM

2006-11-02 02:03:35 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Do you think that our feelings toward immigration are representative of how the rest of America thinks? If it's true then what are our congressmen doing? They don't represent us, who are they representing? We want not amnesty and we want the business fined for hiring them. Am I right?

2006-11-02 01:13:07 · 19 answers · asked by LOUDOBBS 2

people are always trying to get to america, or canada, or the uk. lots of people had to fight to get our countries in the positions they are in now. don't all these immigrants see that they are just taking what our ancestors had to fight and die for? let them fix their own countries, and quit showing up here looking for a good life.

2006-11-02 01:13:05 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

not free!!! do you know other way to immigrate to usa or canada?

2006-11-02 01:00:10 · 6 answers · asked by arya 1

Do you think Britain should start putting harsher restrictions on allowing imigrants into the country ......

I got sent the link bellow this morning and was shocked to find that the exact same number of imigrants entered the country as the population of the city i live (Chester)....

http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=1205644

2006-11-02 00:47:17 · 41 answers · asked by Cat ( " , ) 3

In Georgia, with the fastest growing illegal immigrant population, "The number more than doubled from an estimated 220,000 in 2000 to 470,000 last year."

The state passed 'crack down laws.' Now, "A civil rights group sued the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency Wednesday, claiming its agents had harassed five U.S. citizens of Mexican descent during raids targeting illegal immigrants in southeast Georgia.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Southern Poverty Law Center said the agents were engaging in a "Gestapo-like" campaign to drive Latinos out of the area. It claimed the agents entered houses without warrants, stopped cars on the street, terrified Latinos and vandalized their property."

If true, it would be horrible. But given our government's long history of having to be forced to enforce immigration laws at all, do we believe the plaintiffs or ICE which says the accusations are ""patently false?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061101/ap_on_re_us/immigration_lawsuit_4

2006-11-02 00:20:17 · 14 answers · asked by DAR 7

2006-11-01 23:52:53 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

I finished my college studies last year, and now I have BA degree in English. I tried to apply for a student visa but the cost is very expensive for me and my family. Now I live in Morocco without a fixed job. I teach English in some private schools, but the payment is very low for me to live on my own. I wish you can guide me to do something. I can speak three languages: Arabic, french, English.
Thank you

2006-11-01 21:09:51 · 14 answers · asked by Jalal 1

2006-11-01 20:25:18 · 13 answers · asked by rose1 5

-

2006-11-01 20:10:35 · 9 answers · asked by rozdil88 1

if someone is on a student visa in the scandinavia such as sweden, norway, denmark, is he/she going to have better chances for a USA tourist visa and get it. I personally believe it wont be easier. No matter he/she has the temporary schengen visa, it doesnt mean when he/she applies for the usa tourist visa, he/she gets it.

2006-11-01 19:35:16 · 1 answers · asked by mind 1

I am very disappointed by the UK official talking about passing a law to stop Romanian people to live or work in the UK once the intergration process is approved for Romania to be part of EU.

2006-11-01 19:29:12 · 22 answers · asked by Nina 2

the last part of the k1 visa process is the interview at the us embassy of the foreign country. where are the regulations that state that the interviewee is required to bring in a medical, police clearance certificate etc.

2006-11-01 19:08:40 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-11-01 18:26:20 · 5 answers · asked by s B 2

I can't find the answer of it. and dun no how to explain why and what tensions in Europen that drew immigrations to America.
Can someone please help me and help of my question!!
Thank you soo much!!

2006-11-01 17:59:23 · 7 answers · asked by Momo bb 2

Year in and year out, they pull out the illegal immigration issue that they do NOTHING about (but beneft from immensely). The millions of tax dollars allocated to that "fence" never actually has to be built AND is only 500 ft!!! That means illegals don't have to dig tunnels, they can simply walk AROUND IT--what a shameless PR joke attempted by the shameless Republicans!!!!

2006-11-01 17:49:57 · 13 answers · asked by Agenda Dog 2

i make this question because i seem than some people think there is a war going on ( who knows where ) between USA and Mex , so i was wondering if they are aware of what the hippocrattes law says ....

could someone provide the hippocrate law for those who never heard of it on this site ???

2006-11-01 17:30:13 · 10 answers · asked by game over loves evanescence 6

How Long Before Another Country Would Step In To "Tear This Wall Down"?

2006-11-01 17:30:02 · 16 answers · asked by TheGayDave 1

2006-11-01 17:16:42 · 14 answers · asked by TheGayDave 1

To best explain the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its many connotations, the United States’ concept of “Manifest Destiny” should be covered first. Manifest Destiny was the belief of English-speaking Americans that God had ordained them to take and hold the lands from the Mississippi River to the coast of the Pacific Ocean, much of which was claimed and occupied by Mexicans and Indians. The United States’ people believed its means of fulfilling this destiny were justified, a Machiavellian concept (“the end justifies the means”).

The US found its opportunity to use this concept to obtain a large portion of Mexico when Texas gained independence in 1836. Though Texas had agreed not to annex itself to the United States in exchange for its independence, it did so in 1845. However, at the time of annexation, the southern border of Texas had still not been specified. US President Polk took the position that recognized the Rio Grande as the southern border. In what was later to be considered a deliberate provocation by the United States to begin a conflict with Mexico, US troops entered the area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande (land believed to belong to the US through annexation). The conflict that occurred between the US military and Mexican military was considered an act of war by the US, even though Mexico had not confirmed whether or not the Rio Grande was the southern border of the Texas territory.

After many unsuccessful peace negotiations (open and secret) and after many military skirmishes, the US military gained occupation of Mexico City in August 1847. It was then that the final peace negotiations began in what would become the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty demanded a large section of Mexico’s northern territory, with the Rio Grande as the southern border (for to accept the Nueces would be admitting guilt for starting the war). It was signed and sent to Mexico and the United States’ senates to be ratified on February 2, 1848.

In the United States, President Polk only conceded to accept it and send it on to the Senate for ratification after coming to the conclusion that continuing the war would not acquire for the United States a treaty that was any better. However, he recommended to Congress that an amended one be ratified and sent to Mexico for approval, one that did not contain Article X, which guaranteed property rights for Mexicans and Indians living in the ceded territory being. His main reason for this recommendation was that questions over the validity of land grants in Texas would come up on whether or not the treaty would apply to Texas since they had acquired their independence prior to the treaty.

Many factions within Congress were against ratifying the treaty, but for different reasons. The Whig party believed that the treaty would increase the southern states’ power by legalizing slavery within the new territory. Some were opposed because they were “morally against the war.” Others didn’t want it because they were Polk’s rivals, and some like Sam Houston wanted more territory than the treaty claimed. The treaty suffered few changes otherwise due to “each faction’s opposition to the proposals of the others.” The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, without Article X and with changes made to Article IX, passed the Senate and was ratified on March 10, 1848.

In Mexico, a letter of explanation by US Secretary of State James Buchanan followed the amended treaty. His letter included reasons why Article X was stricken and why Article IX was reworded. According to the letter, Article X was deleted because Buchanan firmly believed the US Constitution’s promise to protect a person’s property would be upheld regardless of whether or not the article was included in the treaty. As for Article IX, Buchanan explained that it had been revised as a “result of the Senate’s wish not to violate precedents established in treaties negotiated with France and Spain.” Also, a document known as the Protocol of Querétaro was presented to the Mexican Congress prior to the treaty’s ratification that explained the United States’ reasons for changing the original treaty. It said that the changes to Article IX “did not intend to diminish in any way” the rights that would be given to Mexican citizens becoming US citizens, and that the deletion of Article X “did not intend in any way to annul grants of land made by Mexico in the ceded territories.” However, the protocol’s interpretation of the treaty was never considered by the US government to be obligatory, meaning it had “no legal force.”

Mexico’s handling of the issues that surrounded the ratification of such a treaty went more along the lines of survival. Many factions in Mexico’s political system were against the treaty. One liberal by the name of Manuel Crescencio Rejón argued that the treaty would mean Mexico’s “economic subordination” and that since it had been signed before Congress could discuss this option, the treaty went against the Mexican Constitution. Another against the treaty was José María Cuevas, who spoke about his opposition to the Chamber of Deputies. Some did favor the treaty because it stopped the US from taking more territory and costing Mexico more military funding. One such person was one of the original commissioners, Bernardo Couto, who called the treaty one of “recovery rather than one of alienation.” In a later book about the war, one author called the treaty merely the confirmation that the US had taken land which had little value and was hard to defend. Mexico deemed it wise to choose the “lesser of two evils” and ratified the treaty on May 19, 1848.

It wasn’t long until the United States began a series of treaty violations, which for the most part went unresolved, and some which still are unresolved today. The Land Act of 1851 established a Board of Land Commissioners which required that land-owners “present evidence supporting title within two years, or their property would pass into the public domain.” According to the protocol (earlier noted to be of “no legal force” according to the US government), the property rights of Mexican landowners would be protected. In the fine print, though, the deletion of Article X made it hard for landowners with “imperfect” titles to complete the processes of land confirmation, whether it was via Mexican law or United States law.

Another violation of the treaty was the Foreign Miners’ Tax Law that inadvertently discriminated against those Mexicans who should have been exempted from the tax because of the treaty’s provisions for US citizenship. “Since there was a legal distinction between the Mexicans who had migrated to California after 1848 and those who were there before the gold rush,” outcry over the tax law being enforced on Mexican-Americans could not be justified.

It was violations such as these that inspired the Chicano movement in the 1960s, the same era as the Civil Rights movement. The movement sought to “redefine” the position of Mexican-Americans. To help with that cause, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was used to point out abuses to their human rights, such as the right to property denied those who were kept from completing their land titles, and such as the right to the full enjoyment of US citizenship which was indicated as forthcoming in Article IX of the treaty. Though the movement did not do well at obtaining help from the US government to restore land to Mexican-Americans, a recent move to take the case of the Mexican-American and the Native-American to international courts by the IITC has begun to meet with increasing success.

Since the signing of the treaty, a policy of arbitration has existed between Mexico and the United States, though the US does use it mostly when to its own advantage. However, this policy, the intertwining of the two cultures due to the Mexican influence in the US Southwest, and advances in both countries’ sense of human rights and diplomacy is slowly warming the friendship of the neighboring nations.

2006-11-01 17:03:14 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

What states are most illegal mexicans living?

2006-11-01 16:52:17 · 13 answers · asked by Direktor 5

i seem many blaming the immigrants for lowering their wages yet do nothing to help increase it in the first place .

i find it contradictory , yet this is also the excuse from the republicans who denied raising the minimun wage in the first place .

so is there any way to explain this ???

or

is the lack of explanaition caused by their real reasons ???

2006-11-01 16:52:02 · 8 answers · asked by game over loves evanescence 6