Mexico: Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

* in the country legally;

* have the means to sustain themselves economically; bank statement required

* not destined to be burdens on society;

* of economic and social benefit to society;

* of good character and have no criminal records of any kind

* contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned, then deported;

* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned then deported;

* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
* the mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset the equilibrium of the national demographics.
* if outsiders do not enhance the country’s economy, or national interest, or are not found to be physically or mentally healthy, they are not welcome, neither are those who show contempt against national sovereignty or security; they must not be economic burdens to society, and have clean criminal history; those seeking to obtain mexican citizenship or legal status, must show birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass a medical exam, and prove they can provide their own health care.
* illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishableby two years in prison, document fraud is subject to a fine and imprisonment, so is alien marriage fraud; evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years imprisonment; foreigners may, and will be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at any litigation.
* law enforcement at all levels, by national mandate, must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations; the mexican military is also empowered and required to assist in immigration enforcement operations, to act at their discrecion. native-born mexicans are equally empowered to make citizens arrests of illegal aliens, and turn them in to authorities.
* foreigners must carry the citizens identity card, those who do not possess all the proper documents and identification will be subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

* Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

* The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

* A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

* Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

* “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

* Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

Barney Frank Says No Delay of seating a Republican win; But Frank has never Really been bound by Rules

The Senate race in Massachusetts could change the dynamics of the debate, should GOP State Senator Scott Brown prevail next week. The Democrats risk losing their 60-seat filibuster proof majority with a Brown win. However, while the special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy has yet to be decided, the Brown campaign has already charged that Massachusetts Democrats will find a way to keep Mr. Brown from being certified, should he win, before the final vote on health care legislation happens in the Senate. Fox News spoke to Mr. Brown about his concern on this issue.:

“When I heard … the machine, not only locally but nationally, is trying to manipulate the process and make sure that if I’m elected, a duly elected senator, I can’t be seated in an effort to vote on this important piece of national legislation, it made me almost sick to my stomach,” Brown said.

“That is the stupidest thing I’ve been asked in a long time. That is insane, the suggestion could only come from a demented right wing source,” erupted Representative Barney Frank (D – MA), when asked by The Washington Times about what he thought of assertions that Massachusetts Democrats would stall the certification process should Mr. Brown win. “There isn’t the slightest possibility of it happening—a way of doing it. That is conspiracy theory at its most contemptible.”

The Boston Herald reported that, according to a source, Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin’s office wants to certify the race on Feb. 20. A spokesman for Mr. Galvin’s office explained that local election districts have to wait at least 10 days before they submit their returns, so military and overseas ballots can be tallied as well. 15 days is the maximum amount of time to submit the returns to the secretary’s office, before they go to governor’s office.

After the race is certified on the state level, the new Massachusetts Senator-elect would then have to be sworn in by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D – NV). An aid from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office sent an email to media saying the winner of the Massachusetts race would be sworn in promptly.:

“When there is a certified winner in Massachusetts, the Senate has received appropriate papers, and the vice president is available, the successor to Kennedy/Kirk will be sworn in.”

The special election for the vacant Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat will happen on January 19.

But Frank seems to have forgotten According to Mass. Secretary of State William F. Galvin “town clerks must wait at least 10 days for absentee ballots to arrive before they certify the results of the Jan. 19 election. They then have five more days to file the returns with his office.” However, they bypassed this process to get a Democrat into office in 2007 so his fellow Democrats could gain a House vote they needed to override a veto of then-Republican President George W. Bush. So, speed could be an option if the right people are managing the system.

It’s real hard to say thought, with Barney Frank as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee has refused to accept any responsibility for recommendations he made that became a major problem when the economy began to decline. Due to his leadership of the finance committee, Frank derived the greatest share of his cash, and power, from Wall Street. He consistently raised more than 50 percent of his campaign contributions from the finance, insurance, and real estate industry, often referred to as “FIRE” — essentially the bundle of interests that had the most to gain from the housing bubble. By contrast, before becoming ranking Democrat, the FIRE share of his money hovered around 25 percent.

Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also “under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives’ use.” Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a “federal regulator,” and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank’s intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: “I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.” Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a (gay)relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.