Sunday, June 30, 2013

Well Hell, We can't Be Having That!

Raised on Hoecakes

According to the New York Times, Carlos Puig “is a columnist for the Mexican newspaper Milenio and the anchor of the television show En 15.” The New York Times published an op-ed piece by Puig on June 26, 2013 that simply boggles the mind.

Puig argues that the US should not ramp up or increase border security or immigration enforcement because of the damage done by returning illegal aliens from the US to Mexico. Puig states the damage he is concerned with is that to Mexico – not the United States.
"But this latest [Immigration and Border Security] plan will only put more stress on Mexican border towns that already bear the brunt of unexpected and, often, unwanted waves of returnees from the United States.
Since 2008, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) has increased deportations of illegal aliens under a policy to maximize “the removal of those who pose the greatest threat to public safety or national security.” The agency says it has sent back close to 410,000 individuals from the United States in the 2012 fiscal year, almost 55 percent of them — 225,390 people — convicted criminal aliens. That’s almost double the number of criminals deported in 2008 — and, the agency says, “the largest number of criminal aliens removed in agency history.”
At this point it almost seems as if Puig is arguing that the US should bear the total responsibility for Mexican citizens to come into the US illegally, commit a crime, be convicted of a crime, and then returned to Mexico rather than Mexico being responsible for the illegal and criminal actions of their own citizens.

Well, it doesn’t just seem that is what he is saying, it is what he is saying.
"Indeed, the policy’s success translates into thousands of convicted murderers, sex offenders and drug dealers being sent back to their countries of origin, which means largely to Mexico. According to the latest figures from the U.S. government, about 450,000 Mexicans who committed crimes in the United States were returned home between 2008 and 2011. This is partly because in 2007 I.C.E. began implementing a program called Rapid REPAT, offering undocumented aliens convicted of criminal offenses early release in exchange for immediate repatriation."
Yeah, because we all know that the US, rather than Mexico or another country, should bear the costs and brunt of the actions of people here in the US illegally.

This would all be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that the Mexican immigration laws are more strict than those of the United States.
"Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.
The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents."  
Why is it acceptable for Mexico to deport illegal aliens who have committed a crime, but not the US? Why the differing standards?

Puig’s piece is not just about the alleged strain that enforcing US law or even enforcing Mexican immigration law in the US. It is that Puig wants Mexico to be involved with making US immigration policy. Puig concludes with:
"Mexico wants the U.S. government to pass an immigration reform that would set on the path to legality the six million or so undocumented Mexicans now living in the United States. But the cost might be too great for some Mexican communities along that very border Americans are trying so hard to make secure — for themselves."
Well, bully for Mexico. The moment Mexico – and Mexican citizens – are willing to apply the same standards to US immigration policies as well as taking responsibility for illegal immigrants in the US that commit crimes then, and only then, can they have a seat at the table.

Until then, Mexico and Mr. Puig has more than enough issues within Mexico without offering advice or demanding what the US should do.

In other words, “pound sand Mr. Puig.”

1 comment:

  1. Mr. Puig has multiple issues with his own cognition deficits. Puig's limited thinking and analysis ability has more holes in it than a good Swiss cheese.