The Facts vs. The Fiction: How Other Countries Deal with Illegal Immigration

by Mark Angelides

The recent media frenzy over the upcoming deportations of criminal migrants is a perfect example of how the elites view Americans as second class citizens. If they truly believed that all people are equal and that all across the world should be treated equally, their anger would be directed at nations that have real discriminatory immigration practices, not the U.S.
The Human Rights Watch on their website states:
“We have exposed the crimes and unsafe working conditions that unauthorized immigrants are too afraid to report out of fear of being deported, the risks of violence back home for those denied due process to seek protection from US deportation, and the devastating impact on millions of people—citizens as well as non-citizens—whose families are torn apart due to inflexible and unfair immigration policies
The devil is in the detail. If policies are inflexible, they must by their nature be enforced fairly, if however, they were flexible, then they would then be enforced unfairly (different for different people and therefore discriminatory).
They are purposely trying to conflate the idea of rules with unfairness, which as you can see results in paradoxical aims. A policy (or set of rules) that treats every case the same is almost the definition of equality. This attempted conflation is therefore not because they want equality. So what do they want?
Let’s look at the immigration policy for another country: Mexico
Under Mexico’s 2011 immigration reform, people found to be illegally resident in Mexico are fined 100 days worth of wages at the minimum wage rate. In the US that would be 11 million people x 8 hours per day x 100 day @ %15 per hour = $132 billion payable to the US treasury.
For permanent residency, Articles 124 to 127 of the Population Laws set out a point based system that takes into account education, skills and experience. So presumably, a person with no skills, education or experience would not be permitted residence.

The idea of reciprocal arrangements is at the heart of fairness. A points-based system is fair to everyone, the immigrants and the existing population. Surely if the protestors and organizations that want to spread “fairness and equality” in immigration policy are serious, they should be protesting the Mexican Government for their “Racist” enforcement of law. It would seem that the least “nice” of either the US or Mexico’s policy is the Mexican one. Perhaps the protestors and rights activists should be spreading their efforts slightly further south.
Of course they won’t. But it is worth pointing out their hypocrisy. The Mexican government admits that it has a massive immigration problem from its southern border. It admits that this leads to higher crime and lower wages for its citizens and costs their country millions (if not billions). Why is border control and strict immigration policy good for one nation and not the other?
If the activists really cared about immigration, they wouldn’t be looking at the U.S. So why do they? Simply, it is to undermine the fabric of a society that functions reasonably well despite not following their agenda. It angers them that a country can be both capitalist and free; believe in God yet not be tyrannical. It doesn’t fit their beliefs, so they hate it. What othe explanation could there be?