Thread: A Mexican Poll,Troubling Implications for U.S. Imm. Policy

December 7, 2009

Exclusive: A Mexican Poll and its Troubling Implications for U.S. Immigration Policy
Allan Wall


The topic of immigration is a controversial one in the United States, but not in Mexico. In Mexico, pretty nearly everybody agrees that the borders should be open for Mexicans to enter the U.S. at will. Not only that, but even if Mexicans go to the U.S. and become American citizens, they, and even their descendants are still considered Mexicans. This raises a number of complications for U.S. citizenship and national identity.

I resided in Mexico for a decade and a half and found it to be an eye-opening experience. Americans tend to have a romantic view of immigration based upon the Ellis Island days of a century past. Mexicans however, view emigration to the United States very differently. They don’t generally consider that they are ceasing to be Mexicans when they become American citizens.

Since illegal immigration in recent years has become so massive, the question of what the U.S. should do with the millions of illegal aliens in the United States is not about to go away. Constant attempts to enact an amnesty (or “comprehensive immigration reformâ€

Do ya think......Dual citizenship should be done away with, infact I don't even know how or when it was allowed in this country!

...and an opinion a Mexican has on what the U.S. government should do with OUR borders and immigration law is relevant because......

Who gives a crap what Mexicans think? I don't. They're opinions in OUR affairs mean nothing, or at least it should mean nothing.

Mexicans need to fix their third world shit hole and quit meddling in OUR affairs. Since so many of them have blatantly broken our immigration laws compared to any other people from any other country, I think a swift and far reaching moratorium should be placed on all immigration from Mexico, legal as well as illegal for the next 25 years! They've abused OUR system and OUR hospitality and the opportunity for being able to come here should be taken away from them. PERIOD!!!

They come here legally and illegally for one reason--MONEY! And they will get that money anyway they can, legally or illegally.
And even if they become citizens, their allegiance will be to the great nation of Mexico, not the U.S.

Not the guys I worked with vortex. But they are the exception, not the rule. Like the Hispanic folks who support ALIPAC.

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Do ya think......Dual citizenship should be done away with, infact I don't even know how or when it was allowed in this country!

I dont know about Mexico, but Salvadorenos have been enjoying dual citizenship since at least 1975. I had a friend who was a dual citizen back then. Because they were born there they hold on to that. That is how it was explained to me.

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

Do ya think......Dual citizenship should be done away with, infact I don't even know how or when it was allowed in this country!

Nothing has changed since my wife became a naturalized citizen. The dual citizenship has always been done away with.

INA: ACT 337 - OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE


Sec. 337. [8 U.S.C. 1448]

(a) A person who has applied for naturalization shall, in order to be and before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony before the Attorney General or a court with jurisdiction under section 310(b) an oath

(1) to support the Constitution of the United States;

(2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;

(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

(4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and

(5) (A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or

(B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/ ... 10232.html

The government does not require a new citizen to take any formal steps to renounce their old citizenship before officials of the "old country". Until they go to their former country's embassy and officially renounce their citizenship, their former country continues to claim a naturalized US citizen as one of its own. However, you have taken an oath that you renounce your former citizenship so I think this country expects naturalized citizens to doing the right thing.

My wife went to the Argentine Embassy here in Houston and officially renounced her citizenship there. To her, that is what it means to be a US citizen. It's like being married to two people...... the old one has to be divorced before you get to marry the new one.


FURTHERMORE........................

Loss of citizenship (INA § 349, 8 USC § 1481)

Section 349 of the INA [8 USC § 1481] specifies several conditions under which US citizenship may be lost. These include:

* becoming a naturalized citizen of another country, or declaring allegiance to another country, after reaching age 18;

* serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US;

* working for a foreign government (e.g., in political office or as a civil servant);

* formally renouncing one's US citizenship before duly authorized US officials; or

* committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow the government of, the US.

That is exactly what I thought, but then why are so many people allowed dual citizenship?

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

That is exactly what I thought, but then why are so many people allowed dual citizenship?

The rule of law has gone out the window. If someone wants to retain their birth citizenship, then they are not serious about being a US citizen and should not be awarded citizenship here.

This conundrum needs to be seriously addressed and the sooner the better.