Michael Waller thinks that the tone of the debate on immigration in this country could use a little more reason and a little less emotion and demagoguery. One way “to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction” is to look at the treatment of immigrants as defined in the Mexican constitution. His note titled “Mexico’s glass house” is a quick and interesting read, bringing to light some stark contrasts between the treatment of immigrants in the United States and Mexico.
Did you know, for example, that naturalized Mexican citizens don’t have all the rights of native-born citizens? You might be surprised to find that naturalized Mexican citizens can lose their citizenship if they return to their country of origin and live there for more than five years. Immigrants, whether naturalized citizens or not, are also barred from certain professions. Waller cites many articles from the Mexican constitution to create a list that will probably surprise many Americans.
Clearly something has to be done to reform US immigration laws. When laws are not enforced even by the government for a long period of time, something is wrong with the laws, the government, or both. There are also too few people asking why many Mexicans don’t want to live in Mexico, a country that has a long history of official corruption and a large and deeply impoverished underclass. When will Mexico be pressured to reform? Back in the US, it seems reasonable to assume that a population numbering in the many millions (some say 11 million) of non-citizens with no legal standing does not create a healthy environment for assimilation and participation in the greater society. Politicians on both sides of the aisle seem unable to deal with the problem rationally. It’s worth reading Waller’s note, if only to encourage a little more critical thinking.