What’s Wrong With Mexico?
(Originally written in 2016)
Sure, the chance for foreigners to set up shop in America is still hot property—no surprise there. But let’s be clear: it’s not a human right, and sneaking into a sovereign nation without paperwork is still called a crime, not “adventure tourism.” If you’d rather be politically correct and intellectually dishonest—translation: allergic to reality—then discussing the issue becomes impossible. And hey, try strolling into Mexico without the right documents and let me know how that vacation ends.
Legal jargon often gets lost in translation, but America’s beauty is that anyone can protest, wave signs, and chant slogans until their lungs give out—even while waving foreign flags, which ironically just motivates folks to build “the wall” taller. Immigration laws are often painted as unfair, but for perspective, the LA Times ran a piece back on April 28, 2010 titled “Mexico’s treatment of immigrants slammed.” Turns out, the fairness problem isn’t exactly exclusive to the U.S.
The treatment of immigrants has become a divisive and embarrassing issue for Mexico. A country that has historically sent millions of its own people to the U.S. and elsewhere in search of work, Mexico has proved itself less than hospitable to Central Americans following the same calling.
We all accept that Mexico has laws, and if you decide to head south, you’d better play by their rules. Same logic applies here. So when I hear a Mexican president foaming at the mouth about America enforcing its immigration laws, I get the sudden urge to hand out a reality check with a side of slapstick.
Next time someone insists U.S. immigration law is cruel and heartless, just point them to The Washington Times article from May 3, 2010: “Mexico’s illegals laws tougher than Arizona’s.” Spoiler alert—foreigners in Mexico are subject to document checks, and excuses, especially the “human rights” variety, are not, I repeat, ARE NOT, a valid defense. And unlike in the U.S., Mexico doesn’t bother with probable cause or suspicion of criminal behavior. Translation: they don’t need a reason to ask for your papers.
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.
Short on cash? Fair enough—especially if the Mexican government is worried about a welfare pile-up. But wait, haven’t we heard that excuse before? Ah yes, the classic “have your cake and eat it too” routine. And just when you thought the arguments couldn’t get any thinner, The Washington Post (Nov. 16, 2007) reported Mexico calling the U.S. border fence a “severe threat to the environment.” Because nothing screams environmental stewardship like using that line as political cover. Honestly, it’s the kind of reasoning that only resonates with Dumb and Dumber—and even they might roll their eyes.
Plans to extend the U.S. fence along the Mexican border are “medieval” and would severely damage the environment, threatening hundreds of plant species and animals, such as Mexican gray wolves, black bears and jaguars, according to a Mexican government report released Thursday.
The environment? Really? Are they serious? Have you been to Mexico lately? Just two days ago Mexico City was busy issuing yet another pollution alert for high ozone levels. But sure, let’s pretend a border fence is the planet’s biggest environmental villain.
Meanwhile, let’s take a quick look at what “legal admission to the United States” actually means. It’s spelled out in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996—not exactly ancient history—and you don’t need a law degree to grasp it. The rules are pretty straightforward, even if the political spin isn’t.
SEC. 301. TREATING PERSONS PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION AS NOT ADMITTED.
(a) “ADMISSION” DEFINED.-Paragraph (13) of section 101(a) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended to read as follows:
(13)(A) The terms ‘admission’ and ‘admitted’ mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
Bottom line: if you haven’t been inspected and stamped with approval by an immigration officer, your status is “ILLEGAL.” Simple enough that even a 5th grader could ace the quiz. And if someone’s in the U.S. illegally? Well, that’s not a riddle—it’s exactly what the word says.
INA: ACT 275 - ENTRY OF ALIEN AT IMPROPER TIME OR PLACE; MISREPRESENTATION AND CONCEALMENT OF FACTS
Sec. 275. [8 U.S.C. 1325]
(a) Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
In America, sneaking back in after deportation can earn you up to 2 years in jail. In Mexico? Try 10 years. Fair? Not exactly. The bottom line is simple: entering any country outside the rules is a crime. So spare me the “human rights” chorus—if that logic held, America could fling its doors open tomorrow to a billion people, and the Rio Grande crossing would look like the world’s longest Black Friday line. Want a real human rights crisis? Darfur. Half a million dead, three million displaced. That’s the kind of tragedy that justifies immigration. And if you Google “Darfur Obama,” you’ll find plenty of headlines questioning why he didn’t seem to care.
Now, let’s talk language. America’s official language? Technically undefined. Sure, programs exist to help new arrivals navigate English and daily life, but permanently funneling government resources into supporting a second language is absurd. It’s costly, counterproductive, and undermines integration. If the argument is about “minorities,” then every language spoken in family living rooms across the U.S. counts. And building little cultural fiefdoms that refuse to integrate? That’s self-defeating. If the goal is to recreate the exact place you left, why bother coming at all? Stay home and save the airfare.
So why is the push to ignore immigration laws and elevate Spanish still so loud? Politics, of course. Businesses love cheap labor, politicians love votes, and both sides are guilty of looking the other way. But don’t be fooled—those “pro-immigration-at-any-cost” groups aren’t fighting for the poor immigrant. They’re fighting for their own interests, and the immigrant is just the convenient mascot.
And just to pile insult on top of injury, we get the circus around voter ID laws. The debate is as silly as it gets—apparently requiring an ID to vote is “disenfranchising,” even though the same folks need an ID to collect government benefits. Maybe that’s the real problem nobody wants to admit.
Then there’s the grand gesture of temporary amnesty, better known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” It slaps on a $465 fee with barely any exemptions, yet somehow the supposedly disenfranchised poor manage to scrape together the cash and trek to whatever inconvenient office they’re told to visit. So much for the sob story.
As usual, the argument collapses under its own weight, and the true objective shines through like neon lights: political base building. Always has been, always will be.
Immigrants crossing the border are usually poor, which makes them the perfect fuel for keeping the social funding machine humming and the political power structure glued together. It’s the same tired, unsustainable “I give you something, you vote for me” contract—straight out of the Venezuelan playbook—that eventually collapses under its own weight. Expectations of success for this group? Pretty low. And language? Oh, that’s part of the game too—it keeps segregation alive and lets politicians craft targeted messages that slip under the mainstream radar. Let’s be blunt: these so-called social and political movements fighting for immigration reform don’t give a rat’s ass about the people. It’s all about the elites—because without the people, they lose their cause, their job, and their revenue stream.
Now, about language. Having an official one doesn’t erase anyone’s ethnicity or identity. I ought to know. Stereotypes annoy me, but they do have a way of exposing inconvenient truths. So here’s the question: does refusing to learn English mean Spanish speakers are incapable, especially when everyone else has managed to adapt? Think about it. Standards exist everywhere for efficiency, and America even has ANSI—the American National Standards Institute—founded in 1918, representing 125,000 companies and 3.5 million professionals. Yet somehow, we still operate without a standard official language. As Forrest Gump would say: stupid is as stupid does.
Finally, the immigration debate itself is framed wrong. The question isn’t “What’s wrong with immigration?”—the law is already clear. The real question is, “What’s wrong with Mexico?” After all, one of the richest men in the world, Carlos Slim Helú, is Mexican, yet the country as a whole is an economic train wreck. Problems only get solved when they’re defined properly. Until then, we’ll keep driving in circles, clueless about which direction to take.
