Don't like it? Get out!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sorry to interrupt, but back to immigration, OK?
I got this email this morning quoting Rush Limbaugh. That fact immediately made me cast a wary eye, but it's worth looking at despite the source.

Limbaugh Laws
All right, immigration proposals under discussion. Let me add mine to the mix. I want to call this proposal the Limbaugh Laws.
Here they are.

First, if you immigrate to the United States of America, you must speak the native language.

You have to be a professional or an investor. We are not going to take unskilled workers. You will not be allowed.

There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, no government business will be conducted in your native language.

Foreigners will not have the right to vote, I don't care how long they are here, nor will they ever be allowed to hold political office.

According to the Limbaugh Laws, if you're in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers. You are not entitled, ever, to welfare, to food stamps, or other government goodies.

You can come if you invest here, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. If you don't have that amount of money, you can't come and invest. You have to stay home.

If you do come and you want to buy land, okay, but we're going to restrict your options. You will not be allowed to buy waterfront property in the United States. That will be reserved for citizens naturally born in this country. In fact, as a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to property. These are the Limbaugh Laws.

Another thing. You don't have the right to protest when you come here. You're allowed no demonstrations, you cannot wave a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies, or you get sent home. You're a foreigner. You shut your mouth or you get out, and if you come here illegally, you go straight to jail and we're going to hunt you down 'til we find you.

I can imagine many of you think that the Limbaugh Laws are pretty harsh. I imagine today some of you probably are going, "Yeah! Yeah!" Well, let me tell you this, folks. Every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico, today. I just read you Mexican immigration law. That's how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country.

Geez, can you blame them for wanting to get out and come here?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Sorry to interrupt, but back to immigration, OK?
I got this email this morning quoting Rush Limbaugh. That fact immediately made me cast a wary eye, but it's worth looking at despite the source.

Geez, can you blame them for wanting to get out and come here?

I would like to see a Snopes on this one. I do a lot of fact checking, on items I post and posts that I read, but verifying these claims against Mexican immigration laws would be tough.

From what this link states, what the author is describing is an immigrant permit, not citizenship. People with green cards in the US do not vote, because they are not citizens.

As for buying waterfront property, the US is a capitalist country and except for drug dealers and terrorists, anyone is welcome to invest anywhere (except for owning ports or defense plants).

BTW, 40,000 times the minimum daily wage in Mexico city (about $4.36) is about $170,00 US depending on currency fluctuations.

What do they mean by invest? Pay, or actually place in an escrow account?

You can find a run down on Mexican immigration law here. Foreigners can own property in Mexico. The laws were changed in 1972. It looks rather convoluted, but bottom line, you buy the property and its yours. A real estate outfit in Mexico geared to selling property to gringo's is offering a duplex for $69,000 and parcels of land for around $30,000 in La Paz.

The immigration page also states that someone who has official immigrant status is eligible for Mexican government programs - what there are of them.

The statements about needing to be a professional and having a large sum of money are true, as is the one about not being allowed to vote, according to the link above.

That's the problem with Rush. He throws in a mixture of truth and bombast, and you end up being skeptical of it ALL. His statement would have still made the same impact had he stuck to the complete truth. But overkill IS his stock and trade.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I would like to see a Snopes on this one. I do a lot of fact checking, on items I post and posts that I read, but verifying these claims against Mexican immigration laws would be tough.

Snopes was the first place I went and they said true. It didn't dawn on me until after I posted it that they were saying true to the fact Rush wrote it and not his facts, so they are open to questioning.

Oh, the other thing Rush appears to be wrong on is that you must be fluent in Spanish to gain immigration status. It doesn't state that ANYWHERE on the immigration page, although one requirement is that you have lived in Mexico for 5 years (I beleive the US has the same requirement). After 5 years, I would think a person would have picked up a couple of words, but it appears to be optional, and the immigration page, itself, is written in English.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Foreigners can own property in Mexico. The laws were changed in 1972. It looks rather convoluted, but bottom line, you buy the property and its yours. A real estate outfit in Mexico geared to selling property to gringo's is offering a duplex for $69,000 and parcels of land for around $30,000 in La Paz.

He says;

If you do come and you want to buy land, okay, but we're going to restrict your options.

That sounds like yes you can buy land but their are restrictions. Then he says;

You will not be allowed to buy waterfront property in the United States. That will be reserved for citizens naturally born in this country. In fact, as a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to property.

This makes it sound like Mexico won't allow foreigners to own waterfront property AND have limited or no property rights even though they buy land. But then

These are the Limbaugh Laws.

tells me that he's making these "laws" based on his interpretation of the Mexican laws, which might not be accurate.
But that said, there is probably a grain of truth there somewhere.

I suspect, (besides Rush, which is always wise) that a great many countries have restriction on foreign nationals owning property.

I waiting for TW to come and tell me I'm unpatriotic.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

He says; That sounds like yes you can buy land but their are restrictions. Then he says; This makes it sound like Mexico won't allow foreigners to own waterfront property AND have limited or no property rights even though they buy land. But then tells me that he's making these "laws" based on his interpretation of the Mexican laws, which might not be accurate.
But that said, there is probably a grain of truth there somewhere.

I suspect, (besides Rush, which is always wise) that a great many countries have restriction on foreign nationals owning property.

I waiting for TW to come and tell me I'm unpatriotic.

Well, SOMEONE isn't telling the whole truth here. Here's a property offered for sale to US buyers from Milagro Real Estate in La Paz.

Yer unpatriotic, Bruce!

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, but do they have full property rights, no restrictions, like who they can sell to or disposition on their death, things like that?

And can they put up a fort with an American Flag?
Don't tell me a Mexican flag is an "american" flag, ok.

Well, this is what it says in The People's Guide to Mexico:

First, as most folks are aware, Mexican residential property in the coastal or border zones can be legally purchased byforeigners, but only through the fideicomiso (bank trust) method set up expressly for this purpose by the federal government. The trusts are for 50 years, and are automatically renewable (for a nominal fee) at the end of the term. As primary beneficiary of the trust, you have essentially all the rights of fee-simple ownership, including the right to name an heir. (Your heir, or "secondary beneficiary" is written into the trust at inception-thus avoiding probate. Very efficient.) You may improve, rent out or sell the property, as you desire. The only major condition is that the property continue to be used for residential, as opposed to commercial, purposes.

So, yeah, you can buy ocean front property there; you just have to jump through a few extra hoops. Its easier for Rush to just scream that its prohibited rather than go to the trouble of explaining it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I have a bunch of what-ifs but it sounds like we can basically buy Mexican waterfront property. Of course keeping it depends on the stability of the government.

So that's one of "Rush's Rules", not based on reciprocal. Good work Mari, I always found it easier to dump it on the librarian than look it up.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

You know what? I agree. So why don't we just bring this down to one point: marriage is male/female, civil union is same sex. Make civil union just as legal and binding as marriage, give it the same rights and responsibilities?

I'm 100% happy with that. Semantics? Absolutely. But it goes a long way to pacify the majority of the people.



Upon further reflection, I think I agree with you. Again, call marriage male/female and call saem sex civil union. Legalize civil union. I really dont' see the problem in that compromise, but then I'm actually pretty moderate in my views.

That is unacceptable to gay Chritians, being gay is not a sin, so I don't see the issue with it.

As for separation of Church and state.
Amendment 1 (1st for a reason)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement signed between the United States and the Muslim region of North Africa in 1797 after negotiations concluded by George Washington (the document, which was approved by the Senate in accordance with Constitutional law, and then signed by John Adams), it states flatly, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." signed by John Adams
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" John Adams

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; -Benjamin Franklin

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" -Thomas Jefferson

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
John Adams April 27,1797

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison fourth president and father of the Constitution

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison

The words "one nation under God" were not added to the Pledge of allegiance until 1953

None of the 85 Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution reference God, the Bible, religion or Christianity.

The words "in God we trust were not consistently added to all money until the 1950s after the McCarthy Era

James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.
The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly

Jesus even said it:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Luke 20:25
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)


As for immigration... I hate the new semantics. I am pro-immigration, pro-legal-immigration, this nation was built on it.
Illegal is illegal.

I happen to be extremely conversant with the issue involved, in fact I have dealt with it all of my life living in the citrus industry working side by side with illegals. You know what, they are good people, salt of the Earth... the one's I managed and worked with (I was not a white hat, though I was the Foreman, it was a family business. I was down in the dirt with them) busted ass and sent every spare dime it took not to live home to their families... but that is the problem, no?
If they were not here we would have paid a fair wage with benefits that Americans would have been happy to take to do the work. Know how I know that... I was doing it when we could not find illegals.
It ain't hard. Hell, I was doing the work as well for a decent wage too.
They do not pay taxes, ever, that they do is a myth and a lie.
We pay for their medicine, their children's school, all social services and more than I can think of. One crew on my farm, one crew had to have have cost the Florida tax payers hundreds of thousands every year, easily.
As individuals, I liked them... but as a groups, as a whole... if your nation sucks, stay and make it better.
Kick some ass and take some names.
Fix it.
Especially when you are so close in a nation like Mexico with such great resources... But no, instead you run away and steal from another nation... People in the US during the depression did not pull this crap.
If you want to be an American do it legally... if you want to work in the US, get a work visa. For those of you who say it is too hard..
I guess that means if it is too hard for me to get a car, it is ok for me to take my neighbors?

Do you what we will do in the citrus industry if you get rid of the illegals or make them get visas?
We will pay a decent wage like we used to, a wage that Americas will be happy to work for....
"Jobs White/Americans won't do", stupidest thing I have ever heard. I have had jobs a hell of a lot worse than picking and cleaning rooms... I know, because I have picked and cleaned bathrooms.
Worked at a distillery (we have our own waste treatment center and you should see the stuff we have to clean-up after a run... sugar and yeast bags can be 100lbs), at an organic fertilizer plant (bet it won't take you long to figure that one out) and go to a state or county waste treatment unit that us union run and see who runs them.... not illegals and not predominantly minorities in Northern states I promise you. They make bank and when a pump or a line breaks.... well, you can just imagine...
Again, it is just a stupid argument pushed by, I am sad to say, the Left... the older I get the sadder I am about the lunacy I see in what I used to align myself with.