Written by Paul Fromm
Monday, 22 February 2010 10:40

*Here's a proud muscular immigration policy that puts the interests of its
people and country first. Too bad it's not th epolicy of Canada or the U.S.*
*Let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.*

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of
contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements
for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance"
and for their dependents. (Article 34)
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the
equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed
detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave
like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws,
and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article
The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of
foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration
authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal
immigrants. (Article 73)
A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who
comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's
identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants
(Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number
(Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses,
may be imprisoned:

Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article
Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or
different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and
imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or
imprisoned as felons:

Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country
without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six
years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the
terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit --
can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on
Population says,

"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five
thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country
illegally." (Article 123)
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico
instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be
deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered
criminals under the law:

A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the
foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.
(Article 127)
Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into
Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the
United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices
versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican
government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the
United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S.
immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their
immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

*This article was first posted at "Mexico's Glass House," Center for
Security Policy Occasional Paper, April 3, 2006.*
Written by Paul Fromm
Monday, 22 February 2010 10:31
*Children Permanently Seized by State To Punish Parents for White
Nationalist Beliefs*

*The distraught young mother hit the nail on the head: "It's communism!" On
February 1, "the Manitoba government won permanent guardianship of two
children whose parents were accused of teaching them neo-Nazi beliefs. A
Court of Queen's Bench judge has ordered that the boy and girl remain in the
custody of Child and Family Services (CFS), which has placed them in foster
care with a relative. The court also dismissed a constitutional challenge
from the father, who argued the government violated his right to raise the
children according to his beliefs. He is the stepfather of the girl, now
nine, and the biological father of the boy, now four years old. ... The
children were removed from their home in 2008 after the girl showed up at
her elementary school with racist writings and symbols on her skin. The
government agency argued the children were emotionally harmed and were also
being raised in squalor and suffering from neglect. (CBC News, February 11,

* *

*"The father admitted to using Nazi salutes and telling the children that
only White people belong in Canada. But he told the court his beliefs do not
amount to racism and he never preached violence. The mother ... accused
social workers of putting words in her daughter's mouth and said she never
preached hatred to her children. The mother testified she wanted to
co-operate with CFS officials in an effort to one day regain custody. ... The
father immediately loses any visitation rights with the children. Up until
Thursday, he was allowed one supervised two-hour visit a week with them."*

* *

*Both parents plan appeals. The decision may be reviewed in a year's time.*

* *

*The judge inflicted the second worst horror parents can face other than the
death of the child; namely, separation from and loss of their children." The
decision was clearly punishment for the parents' political views. The Court
seemed to take special exception to a magic marker drawing on the girl's
wrist: 14 words, which refers to a saying of David Lane: "We must secure the
existence of our people and a future for White children." (Montreal Gazette,
February 15, 2010) Now, if that is deemed intolerable and offensive, are we
to assume that the proper sentiment is that we should sacrifice the
existence of our people and cancel any future for White children. "The
husband admitted to court he is a member of the 'white pride' movement and
he taught his daughter the swastika represented 'love and peace,' 'I don't
believe in interracial breeding,' said the soft-spoken man, adding people
from different races should be 'separated.'" Opposition to mixed marriages
is common, even among many immigrant groups.*
*In a ruling that might have been scribbled by a "People's Court" in the
Soviet Union Court of Queen's Bench Judge Marianne Rivoalen decided: "I
finds that [the girl[ and [the boy[ were in need of protection at the time
of their apprehension [in March, 2008].I find that the emotional well-being
of both children was endangered by the actions and teachings of their parents,
The children are likely to suffer harm if left with their parents and
exposed to their behaviour ... and associations.". ... The wilful promotion
of hatred against an identifiable group [is a] crime in this country. The
children have a right to be protected from these things." However, neither
parent has ever been charged or convicted under any of Canada's repressive
"hate laws." The judge went on to snark about "neo-Nazi flags hanging in the
windows and neo-Nazi regalia on display elsewhere in the home. This was not
a wholesome or nourishing environment in which to raise young children with
developing minds and characters." (National Post, February 12, 2010) What
about parents with communist flags or Che Guevara tee-shirts or the
thousands of Tamil Tiger supporter parents in Toronto with posters of dead
terrorist leader Villupillai Prabakharan in their livingrooms? Would those
be "wholesome or nourishing environments"? The judge made it explicit that
it was the political beliefs of the parents that cost them their children:
"At the time of the children's apprehension [we call it 'state kidnapping'],
[the parents] were both neo-Nazis and White supremacists." Actually,
"neo-Nazi" is a Marxist term of abuse. The parents did not describe
themselves as "neo-Nazis." They did say they were White Nationalists. What
if the parents had been Islamic fundamentalists, Moslem supremacists who, as
most do, believe there will only be peace or dar el Islam when all have
converted to Islam? Or consider, those hundreds of Tamil Tiger supporters
who occupied Toronto's Gardiner Expressway on Mother's Day last year and
pushed their children as a barrier between them and the police lines. Did
their children, as the judge said, "have a right to be protected from these
[This article appears in the March 2010, issue of the *Free Speech Monitor*.
Published monthly, the *Free Speech Monitor* is available by subscription
for $15 per year. You can subscribe by sending a cheque or VISA number and
expiry date to* Free Speech Monitor*, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3.]
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 18 February 2010 07:51
* *

Warman Lawsuits Update

Who isn't chronic litigant *Richard Warman* suing these days? The employee
of the *Department of Natiomnal Defence* seems to have plenty of time for
human rights complaints, court appearances and endless libel suits against
those who criticize him. As reported last month *(Free Speech Monitor #175*),
*Marc Lemire* has discovered that, over the past decade, Warman has filed no
fewer than 61 libel suits or threats thereof. On Monday, February 15, the
long awaited libel trial of Warman's defamation comoplaint against the
combative *Ezra Levan*t opened in Ottawa. Well, sort of. It was postponed
almost before it began. The judge announced that she would have to recuse
herself as she was a friend of Mrs. Warman.

In another litigation, *Warman v. Bertucci,* Douglas Christie, representing
Victoria blogger Bertucci appeared in *Ottawa Provincial Court*, February
19, to argue against a motion by Mr. Warman to strike Mr. Bertucci's
counterclaim. Bertucci is one of a long line of bloggers Warman is suing for
criticizing him. Mr. Bertucci filed a counterclaim against Mr. Warman for
"frivolous and vexatious" litigation. We await the decision.
Page 410 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog