| | |  Editorials | Opinions | July 2008 
Rights - U.S. Constitution vs. Mexican Constitution
 John R. Stoeffler - Jefferson County Journal
go to original
The number of illegal aliens reportedly in the United States is unclear, but estimates put the figure at anywhere from 11 million to 18 million, which is why illegal immigration ranks among the top concerns of Americans.
But each time Americans press their representatives and senators in Congress to address this issue, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants and their misguided supporters take to the streets claiming any challenge to their being in this country will violate their "rights."
To those protesters I have but one question; "to what 'rights' are you referring?" In the first place, an untold number of these protesters have no right, God given or otherwise, to be in the United States without permission of our government. Furthermore, what these misguided miscreants are ignorant of is that with a few notable exceptions, such as the right to vote, the United States Constitution extends the same constitutional rights and protection to them as to every U.S. citizen, even those here illegally.
Since most of those demanding their "rights" appear to be from our neighbor to the immediate south, let's for the moment assume our Constitution reflected the same laws, guarantees,and restrictions as that of the Constitution of Mexico. Got the picture?
Good.
Now let's take a look and see how those flag waving protesters would fare if our Constitution were to read like that of Mexico and apply those same rights and, more importantly, restrictions to their personal liberty.
If our Constitution read like that of Mexico, a U.S. president could compel anyone in the country who is not a citizen and whose presence he didn't like to leave "without the necessity of previous legal action." So states Chapter III, Article 33 of Mexico's Constitution.
Non-citizens living in the U.S. could not acquire land unless they agreed not to invoke the protection of their government, in this case Mexico, as it relates to property they acquire. In other words, being non-citizens, should our government seize their property they would have no recourse whatsoever outside the United States... See Chapter I, Article 27(I) of the Constitution of Mexico.
Were our Constitution to read like Chapter I, Article 32 of Mexico's Constitution, those who come here seeking work might have a tough time getting a job if they had to compete with us Native Americans. In seeking employment, Americans would have "priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all employment." In other words, discrimination based on nationality could be considered and used by employers when hiring.
There are those currently serving in our armed forces who are not U.S. citizens, a privilege our Constitution does not forbid. In fact, this is one way to fast track U.S. citizenship for those who serve honorably.
However, if our Constitution read the same as that of Mexico, no foreigner could serve in the U.S. Army or in the police or public security forces in times of peace. (I don't know when it was that Mexico last went to war.)
In addition, unless you were an American by birth you would be forbidden to serve in the Navy or Air Force.
Education is something all of us value. But suppose our Constitution reflected the restrictions on education that are found in Mexico's Constitution, Chapter I, Article 3 (II), which declares that those seeking elementary and secondary education would have to obtain the express authorization of the government to do so. And get this, "such authorization may be refused or revoked by decisions against which there can be no judicial proceedings or recourse." (Emphasis is mine.)
A number of clergy and religious institutions in this country are enthusiastic in their support of those illegal aliens who demand their "rights." But I wonder how they would feel if they were to read Chapter I, Article 27 (II) of the Constitution of Mexico, which states in part, "religious institutions known as churches, regardless of creed, may in no case acquire, hold, or administer real property or hold mortgages thereon," and that "places of public worship are the property of the nation, as represented by the federal government, which shall determine which of them may continue to be devoted to their present purposes." (Again, emphasis mine.)
I can understand and appreciate anyone who wants a better life for themselves and their families. But as I see it, in-your-face protesters who wave a foreign flag while demanding their so-called "rights" would accomplish more for themselves, their families, and a brighter and more prosperous future for their fellow citizens by taking their protests and demands they aim at the United States to those corrupt, incompetent politicians in Mexico City.
John R. Stoeffler is a Ballwin resident and president and cofounder of the Madison Forum, a constitutional think tank dedicated to upholding the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. |
|
| |
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us