If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABA Journal)   For 35 years, the US government has been denying citizenship to Mexicans born of an American parent due to Article 314 of the Mexican Constitution. Difficulty: There is no Article 314 in the Mexican Constitution   (abajournal.com) divider line 64
    More: Interesting, Mexican Constitution, Mexican, Americans, out-of-wedlock births  
•       •       •

8531 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Sep 2013 at 1:33 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-26 01:15:49 PM
Sad.
 
2013-09-26 01:26:06 PM
This is a the most egregious violation of the US Constitution's 35th Amendment in history.
 
2013-09-26 01:28:42 PM
In before people ask why our courts are depending on foreign Sharia law.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-09-26 01:31:29 PM
Probably forgot to convert from metric.
 
2013-09-26 01:38:10 PM
It's actually Article π ?
 
2013-09-26 01:38:43 PM
and they called me mad...
 
2013-09-26 01:39:29 PM
No Farker would fall for pi. Pie, maybe.
 
2013-09-26 01:39:41 PM
¡No comprende!
 
2013-09-26 01:40:14 PM

mutterfark: It's actually Article π ?


It's the most delicious article of all.
 
2013-09-26 01:40:37 PM
Does anyone remember when we used to think of our country as "the good guys"?

Of course we were wrong, but we got to be happy in our delusions.

Now we don't even have that.
 
2013-09-26 01:40:48 PM
Well of course there is no Article 314. This is Mexico after-all.

It's article Trescientos Catorce. Duh.
 
GBB
2013-09-26 01:41:47 PM
White people's problems?
 
2013-09-26 01:41:55 PM
The Feds don't need no stinking laws.
 
2013-09-26 01:42:18 PM
'All nations attending the conference are only allocated one car parking space.'?
 
2013-09-26 01:46:43 PM
The Mexican constitution means every bit as much as the US constitution does to DHS... so I don't see what's the problem.
 
2013-09-26 01:47:36 PM

joeshill: Does anyone remember when we used to think of our country as "the good guys"?

Of course we were wrong, but we got to be happy in our delusions.

Now we don't even have that.


Everyone thinks of themselves as 'the good guys' or at least the 'not so bad' guys, no matter how monstrous the things they do are.

I'm afraid our time to become the next big threat to human progress is looming =(
/don't want to be the bad guy, despite my handle
 
2013-09-26 01:49:25 PM
I that the 314 one guaranteeing the right to a siesta?
 
2013-09-26 01:49:41 PM
I didn't read the article and have no idea as to its content but I want to disguise uneducated opinion as fact.. The headline is wrong it only counts for people with an American parent who renounced their citizenship, this is the same for all countries not Mexico alone. Nothing to see here, move on people
 
2013-09-26 01:54:08 PM
Well, there is an article 31 and IV after it, so maybe they mean that?:

Article 31
. The obligations of Mexicans are:
I. To see that their children or wards, under fifteen years of age, attend public or
private schools to obtain primary, elementary and military education during the time
prescribed by the Law on Public Education in each State.
II. To be present on the days and hours designated by the Ayuntamiento of the place
in which they reside, to receive civic and military instruction which will equip them
for the exercise of their rights as citizens, give them skill in the handling of arms,
and acquaint them with military discipline.
III. To enlist and serve in the National Guard, according to the respective organic law,
to secure and defend the independence, the territory, the honor, the rights and
interests of the homeland, as well as domestic tranquility and order.
IV. To contribute to the public expenditures of the Federation, and the State and
Municipality in which they reside, in the proportional and equitable manner
provided by law.


PDF: http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/mex/en_mex-int-text-const.pdf

So they mean they should go home and make money for Mexico? Imokaywiththat.jpg
 
2013-09-26 01:56:12 PM
Of course there's an Article 314 of the Mexcian Constitution.  My buddies and I were talking about it the other night while playing fizzbin.

hitlersbrain: 'All nations attending the conference are only allocated one car parking space.'?


"At a time like this, you're worried about the Chinese delegation bringing two cars?"
 
2013-09-26 01:56:55 PM
Wow. That was a quick green.
/subby
 
2013-09-26 01:59:56 PM
So its kinda like the 16th amendment then.
 
2013-09-26 02:02:38 PM
How about a new article stating that:

(1) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose internal politics have been manipulated by the CIA, multinational corporations or any other entity of the United States.
(a) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose economic landscape has been significantly shaped by Americans' insatiable demand for cocaine and the criminal/political networks, in both countries, that are a direct result of said demand.
 
2013-09-26 02:04:54 PM
How is it that the laws of any other nation determine whom the USA does and does not consider to be its own citizens, anyway? U.S. citizenship at birth (aka Natural Born Citizenship) is determined solely by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts (INA), the current one being INA §301 (aka United States Code Title 8 [USC 8] §1401).

The INS and DHS have been acting outside the law here, from what I can see. (So what else is new?)
 
2013-09-26 02:04:58 PM

doctor wu: How about a new article stating that:

(1) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose internal politics have been manipulated by the CIA, multinational corporations or any other entity of the United States.
(a) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose economic landscape has been significantly shaped by Americans' insatiable demand for cocaine and the criminal/political networks, in both countries, that are a direct result of said demand.


Simplified that for you.

/snark aside, speaking as a Canadian, I can't say Canada's fallen foul of either of those
//you just fark us over in trade deals
 
2013-09-26 02:06:50 PM

doctor wu: How about a new article stating that:

(1) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose internal politics have been manipulated by the CIA, multinational corporations or any other entity of the United States.
(a) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose economic landscape has been significantly shaped by Americans' insatiable demand for cocaine and the criminal/political networks, in both countries, that are a direct result of said demand.


An acceptable alternative spelling for "cocaine" is also Pea Ee Tea Are Oh Ell Ee You Em, right?
 
2013-09-26 02:07:06 PM

doctor wu: How about a new article stating that:

(1) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose internal politics have been manipulated by the CIA, multinational corporations or any other entity of the United States.
(a) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose economic landscape has been significantly shaped by Americans' insatiable demand for cocaine and the criminal/political networks, in both countries, that are a direct result of said demand.


What about countries whose internal politics were manipulated by a multinational company that has no ties to the US? Seems like pretty big loophole
 
2013-09-26 02:12:01 PM

tuffsnake: doctor wu: How about a new article stating that:

(1) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose internal politics have been manipulated by the CIA, multinational corporations or any other entity of the United States.
(a) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose economic landscape has been significantly shaped by Americans' insatiable demand for cocaine and the criminal/political networks, in both countries, that are a direct result of said demand.

What about countries whose internal politics were manipulated by a multinational company that has no ties to the US? Seems like pretty big loophole



I'd say "multinational corporations" covers that.
 
2013-09-26 02:13:20 PM

joeshill: Does anyone remember when we used to think of our country as "the good guys"?

Of course we were wrong, but we got to be happy in our delusions.

Now we don't even have that.


It's not like the US was 'great' just better in some places.  Though after the first half of the twentieth century, compared to everyone else we certainly looked like the good guys. But FDR, Truman, Hitler and Stalin, and Mao are dead.  The Soviet Union is gone, Commie China makes our toilet seats. The only places with leaders worse than ours are two bit shi'it holes. And except for Federalism a lot of the US would be a two bit shi'it hole. (You think Arizona, New Mexico wouldn't be more like Chihuahua without Federal Transfer payments?)

So now, we're mostly douche bags like everywhere.
 
2013-09-26 02:14:00 PM
woops

COMALite J:
doctor wu: How about a new article stating that:

(1) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose internal politics have been manipulated by the CIA, multinational corporations or any other entity of the United States.
(a) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country whose economic landscape has been significantly shaped by Americans' insatiable demand for cocaine and the criminal/political networks, in both countries, that are a direct result of said demand.

An acceptable alternative spelling for "cocaine" is also Pea Ee Tea Are Oh Ell Ee You Em, right?


I'd say "multinational corporations" covers that.
 
2013-09-26 02:17:26 PM

COMALite J: An acceptable alternative spelling for "cocaine" is also Pea Ee Tea Are Oh Ell Ee You Em, right?


That is the most retarded spelling of "Latina telenovella actresses" I've ever seen.
 
2013-09-26 02:20:23 PM
It's okay. For the same time, they've been denying us the right to own land there. So, it evens out.
 
2013-09-26 02:25:11 PM

Bondith: (1) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country

Simplified that for you.


The United States has a responsibility towards its own people, and that responsibility comes first. Unlimited immigration would not bring everyone up to America's level of civilization, it would drag us down to theirs.
 
2013-09-26 02:26:21 PM
Mmmmmmm .. PIE !!!!!!
Mmmmmmm .. Mexican Food
Mmmmmmm .. SUGAR

Mmmmmmm .. Leche Quemada
 
2013-09-26 02:34:41 PM

Copper Spork: Bondith: (1) The United States cannot deny citizenship to persons from any country

Simplified that for you.

The United States has a responsibility towards its own people, and that responsibility comes first. Unlimited immigration would not bring everyone up to America's level of civilization, it would drag us down to theirs.


I was trying to imply that doctor wu's list or criteria would include every country on the planet (and then acknowledged the inaccuracy of that)
 
2013-09-26 02:56:04 PM
doctor wu

In high school, I briefly dated a girl with the last name Wu. She went on the become an MD.
 
2013-09-26 02:57:11 PM

Gecko Gingrich: doctor wu

In high school, I briefly dated a girl with the last name Wu. She went on the to become an MD.


Also in high school, I failed typing class.
 
2013-09-26 03:02:09 PM

COMALite J: How is it that the laws of any other nation determine whom the USA does and does not consider to be its own citizens, anyway? U.S. citizenship at birth (aka Natural Born Citizenship) is determined solely by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts (INA), the current one being INA §301 (aka United States Code Title 8 [USC 8] §1401).

The INS and DHS have been acting outside the law here, from what I can see. (So what else is new?)


Um, none of those apply to this guy.  His father was a citizen, but not a US resident (living in Mexico city at the time) so he doesn't fit the "resident in the US for the previous year" requirement and his mother was a non-citizen (with respect to the US).

The rule of thumb for US citizenship is usually that we'll take them if the other country with a claim doesn't claim them.  Additionally, officially we tend to revoke dual citizenships once someone turns 18 and starts executing the duties of citizenship (voting, etc) in one nation or the other.  The grey area here seems to be that we thought that Mexico automatically claims people in this situation, so we were trying not to step on any toes, but it turns out they don't, so the court is ordering a modification of policy.

Both the way we were doing it before and the way we'll do it now as a result of this ruling are in line with the INA.
 
2013-09-26 03:11:33 PM
Ah prairie shiat, everybody!
 
2013-09-26 03:24:20 PM
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
 
2013-09-26 03:30:48 PM
We need reform now!!  Let's make sure that Mexicans born of 1 murican parent or 2 mexican parents never get citizenship.
 
2013-09-26 03:31:57 PM

Jim_Callahan: COMALite J: How is it that the laws of any other nation determine whom the USA does and does not consider to be its own citizens, anyway? U.S. citizenship at birth (aka Natural Born Citizenship) is determined solely by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts (INA), the current one being INA §301 (aka United States Code Title 8 [USC 8] §1401).

The INS and DHS have been acting outside the law here, from what I can see. (So what else is new?)

Um, none of those apply to this guy.  His father was a citizen, but not a US resident (living in Mexico city at the time) so he doesn't fit the "resident in the US for the previous year" requirement and his mother was a non-citizen (with respect to the US).

The rule of thumb for US citizenship is usually that we'll take them if the other country with a claim doesn't claim them.  Additionally, officially we tend to revoke dual citizenships once someone turns 18 and starts executing the duties of citizenship (voting, etc) in one nation or the other.  The grey area here seems to be that we thought that Mexico automatically claims people in this situation, so we were trying not to step on any toes, but it turns out they don't, so the court is ordering a modification of policy.

Both the way we were doing it before and the way we'll do it now as a result of this ruling are in line with the INA.


Uner current law he would have been eligible. I don't know about the law when he was born.

As for dual citizenship, that is just wrong. The US accepts dual citizenship, the supreme court decided in the 1950s that using your foreign citizenship has no impact on American citizenship.

The only case where exercising your powers in a foreign country affect US citizenship is if the foreign country requires you to renounce your US citizenship to do so.
 
2013-09-26 03:42:46 PM
there was a point to birthright citizenship when we emancipated the slaves, but everything around immigration should be reexamined now.

the whole immigration system sucks.

/no one curr
 
2013-09-26 03:46:28 PM
We are spending a billion plus on fences and border guards when 80% of the illegals come in on visa's and just stay. Our govt is run by reactionary idiots and facts don't seem to sway them from the biases and heuristics they carry around.
 
2013-09-26 03:46:51 PM

ElLoco: The Mexican constitution means every bit as much as the US constitution does to DHS... so I don't see what's the problem.


lol.

Seriously though, does anybody know why Mexican law has any bearing at all on US immigration policy?
 
2013-09-26 03:49:33 PM

Voiceofreason01: ElLoco: The Mexican constitution means every bit as much as the US constitution does to DHS... so I don't see what's the problem.

lol.

Seriously though, does anybody know why Mexican law has any bearing at all on US immigration policy?


It's convenient.

Misquoting a non-existent Mexican law provides a convenient excuse to deny citizenship to brown people.
 
2013-09-26 04:09:42 PM

Jim_Callahan: The rule of thumb for US citizenship is usually that we'll take them if the other country with a claim doesn't claim them. Additionally, officially we tend to revoke dual citizenships once someone turns 18 and starts executing the duties of citizenship (voting, etc) in one nation or the other. The grey area here seems to be that we thought that Mexico automatically claims people in this situation, so we were trying not to step on any toes, but it turns out they don't, so the court is ordering a modification of policy.


That dual citizenship thing was ruled against in the 1952.  It doesn't happen anymore.  Some other countries do that though, or will make the person choose at 18.  So they might have to choose, but not because of the US laws.

In addition, how would someone born in Mexico to a Mexican citizen mother not be a Mexican citizen?  No, they are not that strict.  So, he wasn't "unclaimed".

It had nothing to do with either of those things, but with the rules for citizenship after being born out of wedlock to a citizen father before 1986.  So long as he his parentage was legitimatized before he was 21 through either US rules or local governing rules, and the father had been resident in the US for the required amount of time, he'd get citizenship.  The rule they thought existed and did not was supposed to deal with that process of legitimatizing out of wedlock births; it had nothing to do with Mexican citizenship.  They were saying his parentage wasn't legally recognized in time, which is needed when you are relying on the father's citizenship, and that the non-existent law made the marriage of his parents the only way to legally recognize the parentage in Mexico.  However, both of his parents are on his birth certificate, which is enough by the actual Mexican law, to make his parentage 'legitimate'.

court details:  http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-60087-CV0.wpd.pdf
 
2013-09-26 04:12:54 PM

Voiceofreason01: ElLoco: The Mexican constitution means every bit as much as the US constitution does to DHS... so I don't see what's the problem.

lol.

Seriously though, does anybody know why Mexican law has any bearing at all on US immigration policy?


It wasn't a supposed Mexican law about citizenship.  It was a supposed Mexican law about recording births and establishing parentage.  He needed to legally establish that his father was his father, before he was 21, in order to claim citizenship.  Basically they were claiming that Mexico doesn't recognize bastards.
 
2013-09-26 04:13:25 PM

COMALite J: How is it that the laws of any other nation determine whom the USA does and does not consider to be its own citizens, anyway? U.S. citizenship at birth (aka Natural Born Citizenship) is determined solely by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts (INA), the current one being INA §301 (aka United States Code Title 8 [USC 8] §1401).

The INS and DHS have been acting outside the law here, from what I can see. (So what else is new?)


But they were doing it to protect us from those dirty brown people.

Seriously, I have a hard time believing that this was an honest mistake. The idea of citing Mexican law to justify US citizenship decisions, the fact that that law has never actually existed- This was a deliberate attempt to enact a racial exclusion policy, and it worked. Somebody should have caught it much earlier. It's hard to explain the existence and continuance of this policy by anything other than racial bias.
 
2013-09-26 04:29:32 PM

cptjeff: COMALite J: How is it that the laws of any other nation determine whom the USA does and does not consider to be its own citizens, anyway? U.S. citizenship at birth (aka Natural Born Citizenship) is determined solely by U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts (INA), the current one being INA §301 (aka United States Code Title 8 [USC 8] §1401).

The INS and DHS have been acting outside the law here, from what I can see. (So what else is new?)

But they were doing it to protect us from those dirty brown people.

Seriously, I have a hard time believing that this was an honest mistake. The idea of citing Mexican law to justify US citizenship decisions, the fact that that law has never actually existed- This was a deliberate attempt to enact a racial exclusion policy, and it worked. Somebody should have caught it much earlier. It's hard to explain the existence and continuance of this policy by anything other than racial bias.


Some of the other articles seem to imply it was a local law, and they confused the source (and of course, the same local laws do not apply everywhere in Mexico).  So it is likely mostly incompetence that kept them relying on a mistaken reference repeatedly without checking it.  It probably wouldn't have been such a particular group (born to an American father who didn't marry their mother in particular areas in Mexico before 1986 who didn't otherwise establish parentage in court or reside with their father and had no contact with the father to use for naturalization), and would have been a more vague reason if it had been intentional.  I'm not saying that nobody involved had any racial motivation, but I could easily see how at least some of the rejections could be mistakes without requiring that.  Those sort of employees don't tend to make their own legal interpretations, and wouldn't be experts on Mexican law - once someone said the law was that way, it'd take a lot to remedy the error.

It is unfortunate it was so difficult and costly to get the decision reviewed, but that isn't a surprise with any sort of government decision.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report