Free Republic

I posted this here as it appears to be an excellent analysis, so everyone is aware of the disparity.

LINK: MEXICO'S GLASS HOUSE- How the Mexican constitution treats foreigners Center for Security Policy April 3, 2006 by Michael Waller

Introduction

Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.[1]

Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico's constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution's protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.

Summary
In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

• Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
  
  
• Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
  
  
• Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
  
  
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
  
  
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
  
  
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
  
  
• Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
  
  
• Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants
The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country's political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country." Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,

"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)

The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."

The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss. Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95). The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president's parents also be Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants. The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth." The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country." The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action." Notional policy options Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another's laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States. Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:

1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
   
   
2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.

These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government's current immigration demands on the United States - as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.

Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country's national security. Mexico's internal immigration policy is Mexico's business. However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny. The time has come to examine Mexico's own glass house.

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Center for Security Policy's Vice President for Information Operations.

[1] The official text of the Constitution of Mexico appears on the Website of the Chamber of Deputies, or lower house of Congress, of the United Mexican States: http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/txt/1.txt. An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on the Website of Illinois State University: http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html (Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation)

To paraphrase the ‘lil snowflake: “Is it a crime to commit a criminal offense?”

Really, Abigail? With such intellect, how did you even graduate kindergarten? Were your parents first cousins?

To help you get a clue, Abby, try asking someone to read to you, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and hopefully they can then explain it to you in simple English.

A first offense is considered a misdemeanor. Subsequent offenses may be treated as a felony.

I had no idea until I saw what they did to CO 10 years ago.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court allows states to get rid of race based districts

Cool!

They know. They just don’t care. The constitution stands in the way of their desire for power & control. So they do their level best to negate it.

CC

“”” It starts as a criminal violation but “at some point becomes a civil matter”.”””

And I believe the penalty is....GO HOME

Plus at least ten more, maybe more like 17 based on illegal alien migrants in sanctuary states.

“Will she be at the No Kings protest tomorrow as a paid protestor?”

-

No, having never had a proper job that I know of because the mother was independently wealthy, he and his wife are currently on a 3 week vacation to points west including the Grand Canyon spending the money she left only to him when she passed away last year because he’s an only child.....which is more than likely another of his issues.....I know, I’m an only child myself....it’s a different existence growing up with no siblings.....and this guy gives only children a bad name.

Guess they never learned anything about the Constitution or the other laws of our country. They must consider illegal entry into the U.S. similar to jaywalking. Hint: One of them is a felony.

I presented on this a few years ago. It starts as a criminal violation but “at some point becomes a civil matter”. That was a quote from a case, but I don’t recall any substantive explanation for that interpretation.

And Virginians still vote for her. God help America!

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, October 16, 2025

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke on the phone on October 16. Trump stated that the two leaders had a “very productive” call and that the two largely discussed potential bilateral economic prospects to pursue after a resolution to the war in Ukraine.[1] Trump stated that the two agreed that there will be a high-level advisor meeting at an unspecified date next week (between October 19 and 25) and an unspecified location with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio leading the US delegation. Trump stated that he and Putin will then meet in Budapest to discuss a resolution to the war. Trump noted that he will discuss the contents of his October 16 phone call with Putin with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during Zelensky’s visit to Washington on October 17. Trump told reporters on October 16 that he will be meeting with Putin in “two weeks or so” and that Rubio will be meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov “pretty soon.”[2] Trump suggested that he, Zelensky, and Putin may coordinate “separate but equal” meetings.[3] Trump stated that Putin “really did not like the idea” of the United States sending “a couple thousand Tomahawks” to Ukraine when Trump raised the question.[4]

Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov attempted to obfuscate Russia's deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in his statement on the October 16 Trump-Putin call. Ushakov claimed that the Trump-Putin call discussed how Ukrainian forces are allegedly using “terrorist methods” to strike civilian and energy infrastructure in Russia since Russia maintains the strategic initiative on the battlefield.[5] Ushakov claimed that the Ukrainian strikes are “forcing” Russia to respond “accordingly.” Ukraine's recent long-range strike campaign is targeting Russia's energy sector in order to degrade Russia's capacity to fund its war against Ukraine and to fuel its fighting forces.[6] Russian forces, in contrast, have been deliberately targeting Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure, including by conducting first-person view (FPV) drone strikes systematically targeting civilians in Kherson Oblast since late 2023, long predating Ukraine's recent long-range strike campaign against Russian energy.[7] Open-source investigative outlet Tochnyi reported on September 28 that Russian drone strikes have resulted in 2,877 Ukrainian civilian casualties in Kherson City alone since 2023.[8]

Ushakov also claimed that US Tomahawk sales to Ukraine would not affect the battlefield situation and would “significantly damage” bilateral US-Russia relations.[9] Ushakov’s claims are a continuation of the Kremlin's reflexive control campaign to deter US sales of Tomahawks to Ukraine.[10] ISW continues to assess that the US deliveries of Tomahawk missiles would not lead to a significant escalation in Russia's war against Ukraine, given Russia's own frequent use of comparable long-range cruise missiles against Ukraine but could make a notable contribution to Ukraine's efforts to defend itself, as ISW has noted.[11]

Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Head Alexander Bortnikov on October 16 falsely accused the United Kingdom (UK) of fueling “hysteria” about the threat Russia poses to Europe and claimed that “NATO intelligence services” participated in the recent drone incursions over European countries that Russia actually conducted.[12] Bortnikov accused the UK of trying to establish a naval blockade of Kaliningrad Oblast and the Baltic Sea and attempted to discredit recent UK sanctions against the Russian oil industry and shadow fleet as part of the alleged “blockade” campaign.[13] Bortnikov also accused the UK of planning sabotage operations with Ukrainian special services against the TurkStream pipeline and Russian critical infrastructure.[14] Bortnikov’s accusations against the UK follow an October 6 claim by Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) that the UK is planning for a group of pro-Ukrainian Russians fighting for Ukraine to conduct an attack on a Ukrainian Navy ship or a foreign civilian vessel in a European port.[15] The SVR has been releasing similar claims more frequently in recent weeks, constituting a new concerted pattern of activity that is likely part of Russia's “Phase Zero” informational and psychological condition setting phase for a higher level of NATO-Russia conflict.[16] The FSB and SVR are likely engaged in a cognitive warfare campaign aimed at sowing confusion among the European population and the international community about the actor responsible for a variety of overt and covert attacks against NATO states, such as sabotage missions, electronic warfare (EW) interference, GPS jamming, drone incursions, and arson. Officials from several European states have identified Russia as responsible for many of these attacks, including many of the drone incursions into European airspace in the past few weeks.[17] The European Parliament also passed a resolution on October 9 identifying Russia as responsible for many of the recent “escalatory actions” and deliberate drone incursions.[18]

Russian forces are reportedly using North Korean forces operating in Russia in ways that will allow North Korean forces to take battlefield lessons learned back to North Korea. The Ukrainian General Staff released footage on October 16 showing North Korean drone operators in Kursk Oblast and reported that North Korean forces are conducting short-range quadcopter reconnaissance drone missions from Kursk Oblast to identify and adjust fires to support Russian forces conducting offensive operations in Sumy Oblast.[19] North Korean involvement in drone operations rather than the highly attritional infantry assaults that characterized North Korea's operations in Kursk Oblast in 2024-2025 increases the likelihood that North Korean personnel will survive and be able to bring important experience in modern war back to North Korea.[20] The North Korean military command will likely integrate and disseminate the lessons that North Korean forces learn in Russia throughout the North Korean army. The Russian military command's decision to employ North Korean forces as drone operators likely allows Russian forces to avoid overcoming at scale the language barrier that reportedly plagued previous North Korean-Russian joint missions in Kursk Oblast or restructuring Russian forces to integrate North Korean soldiers.[21]

Russian forces are reportedly adapting their long-range drone and missile strike tactics targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure in an attempt to disrupt the Ukrainian power system on a large scale. Ukrainian outlet Ukrainska Pravda reported on October 16 that Russia relied on “carpet bombing” in Winter 2022-2023, striking various targets throughout Ukraine with a high quantity of drones and missiles, but is now using “piecemeal” tactics to target Ukrainian energy infrastructure oblast by oblast.[22] Ukrainska Pravda stated that Russian forces are targeting frontline and border areas, conducting localized strikes against Sumy and Chernihiv oblasts while also regularly but less intensely striking Kharkiv, Odesa, Mykolaiv, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts. Russia is reportedly trying to destroy both local energy generation capabilities and delivery and distribution systems by attacking substations. Ukrainska Pravda reported that Russian forces primarily used drones for these purposes in August and September 2025, launching 10 to 40 drones against one target in a single wave. Russian forces are reportedly now deploying a series of waves with several drones every hour and then subsequently conducting massive missile strikes. Ukrainska Pravda stated that Russia aims to create a blackout in Ukraine by creating a power deficit in eastern Ukraine, where consumption is typically higher and where Russian forces have destroyed almost all local generation capabilities, while gradually stopping the flow of electricity from west to east. One source told Ukrainska Pravda that the number of drones Russia is launching against each target is making defense difficult and that a single precise hit is enough to disable a power plant's power unit. A manager of a Ukrainian energy company reportedly stated that Russia also aims to disrupt Ukraine's gas sector such that Ukraine cannot reliably supply fuel to generate electricity and heat.

Recent Russian drone technological adaptations are likely facilitating Russia's strike campaign against Ukraine's energy sector. Russian sources recently published footage of a Russian strike in Chernihiv Oblast with an MS variant of the Shahed drone, which reportedly includes a thermal imaging camera and video stream and has a range of up to 200 kilometers.[23] Russia is also reportedly using thermobaric warheads on its Shahed drones, allowing Russian strikes to destroy facilities even in hardened shelters like the ones Ukraine is installing to protect energy facilities.[24] Russian strikes targeting power infrastructure in frontline areas, particularly Sumy and Chernihiv oblasts, may aim to achieve some battlefield effects by forcing Ukrainian forces operating in the area to rely on generators, creating vulnerabilities to further Russian strikes. Generators require large and reliable supplies of fuel, and Russia's widespread campaign to strike Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) could inhibit Ukraine's ability to rely on generators at scale near the line of contact.[25]

Ukraine's European partners announced new military assistance for Ukraine at the October 15 Ukraine Defense Contact Group (the Ramstein Format) meeting. NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte stated that 17 NATO member states committed to join the Prioritized Ukrainian Requirements List (PURL) initiative, which funds NATO purchases of US-made weapons for Ukraine.[26] Ukrainian Defense Minister Denys Shmyhal stated that new PURL funding totaled at least $422 million.[27] Shmyhal stated that Ukraine's PURL needs in 2026 will range from $12 billion to $20 billion.[28] Shmyhal stated that Ukraine will be able to produce up to 20 million drones in 2026 if Ukraine's partners provide the necessary funding and noted that Ukrainian drone and missile production requires over $4 billion in immediate funding.[29]

Shmyhal stated that several European states contributed funding toward purchases from the Ukrainian defense industrial base (DIB), including $600 million from Norway for drones, electronic warfare (EW) systems, and explosives; $106 million from the Netherlands for drones; $8 million from Canada for interceptor drones; and $4 million from Iceland within the “Danish Model” (in which Ukraine's partners buy Ukrainian-manufactured weapons for the Ukrainian military).[30] Shmyhal also announced several European packages of military aid to Ukraine, including $8 billion from Sweden for security assistance in 2026-2027; $72 million from the Czech Republic; $20 million from Canada for winter equipment and missile components; and $12 million from Portugal to the International Fund for Ukraine (IFU), a British mechanism that uses financial contributions from Ukraine's partners to purchase military equipment for Ukraine. The Danish Ministry of Defense (MoD) reported that Denmark will provide Ukraine with a new military aid package worth 1.1 billion kroner (roughly $172 million), including maritime equipment and funding for training.[31] Shmyhal announced that Ukraine signed an agreement with Germany to expand bilateral technological and defense industrial cooperation.[32] Germany and Ukraine will develop joint industrial products to produce Lynx infantry fighting vehicles and ammunition, and to repair Gepard anti-aircraft guns and Leopard tanks.

https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-16-2025/

ping above

I would conclude that she’s doing a great job in losing this election, but with help from the heavily blue DC region she might still win.

Its always been a crime Angela. 🙄

I’ve had one across the street for over 20 years now and the way he sees the world makes very little sense to me.

Will she be at the No Kings protest tomorrow as a paid protestor?

One of those times, where the speaker is too dumb to realize she is ignorant.

What part of the word “illegal” is misunderstood?