LOS ESTADOS DES-UNIDOS DE NORTEAMERICA POR Maria Elena Salinas

[maria elena sa…]

LOS ESTADOS DES-UNIDOS DE NORTEAMÉRICA

POR MARÍA ELENA SALINAS

El debate sobre el tema migratorio está nuevamente sobre el tapete. Y las noticias no son buenas. Los activistas pro inmigrantes le han estado rogando literalmente al gobierno federal aprobar una ley que repare nuestro resquebrajado sistema migratorio. Pero Arizona tomo la iniciativa y el resultado no es el que esperaban. La ley antiinmigrante y antihispana que acaba de firmar la gobernadora Jan Brewer no solamente ha dividido al país sino que ha puesto en peligro la posibilidad de tener una reforma migratoria.

¿Por qué la llamo antiinmigrante y antihispana? Es simple. Aunque este país tenga el derecho y el deber de controlar sus fronteras, la esencia de esta ley es detener y deportar a cualquier persona que esté en este país sin documentos y para lograr esa meta comenzaran a detener a cualquiera que físicamente cumpla con el estereotipo de un indocumentado. El hecho de que la ley prohíba aplicar el perfil racial es ridículo. ¿Habrá alguien que crea que los agentes encargados de hacer cumplir las leyes en Arizona van a detener realmente a un alemán rubio, de ojos azules que sospechen que se encuentra ilegalmente en el país?

El humorista Stephen Colbert hizo recientemente una sátira sobre la nueva ley de Arizona. "El acoso de los latinos con el perfil racial no es un efecto secundario inevitable de la ley antiinmigrante de Arizona -- es la meta principal" dijo. "Creo que la ley también les permite detener a cualquier persona que utilice la palabra ‘chipotle.’" Colbert agrega que ningún "inmigrante ilegal querrá ser perseguido, ni tampoco los inmigrantes legales que tienen la misma apariencia, o los ciudadanos americanos de descendencia hispana o italianos que por tener tez morena parezcan mexicanos." Al fin y al cabo dice, los "raviolis son tan sólo empanadas mojadas." Muy chistoso señor Colbert. Pero dejando a un lado las bromas, hay muchos aspectos de esta ley que la hacen desatinada, sin mencionar que es inconstitucional.

Los efectos de la ley SB 1070 están caldeando los ánimos a lo largo y ancho del país. Protestas masivas en varias ciudades, amenazas de demandas legales, amenazas de boicot contra Arizona por parte de organizaciones de los derechos civiles así como gobiernos locales y estatales y convencionistas que están cancelando sus planes de viaje. Sin duda la multimillonaria industria del turismo sentirá el golpe en Arizona.

Con este tipo de reacciones, apostaría a que la ley, tal y como esta, no será implementada. Sin embargo el daño ya está hecho. Hay que ser francos, el problema real no es eliminar a los jornaleros, jardineros, niñeras o campesino. Ellos no representan una amenaza. El argumento de los peligros del narcotráfico y el tráfico humano en la frontera es tan sólo un disfraz ya que ley no hace nada para resolver ese problema específico. El asunto es netamente POLÍTICO. Los Republicanos tan sólo están preparando el terreno para las próximas elecciones de mitad de período.

Inmigración es quizás el tema más polarizante de estos tiempos. Los conservadores, en su intento de mantener sus puestos o de recobrar la mayoría en el congreso, intentan complacer a su base conservadora. Entre ellos el Senador John McCain quien copatrocinó un proyecto de ley de reforma migratoria en el 2007 que habría abierto el camino de la legalización para los inmigrantes indocumentados. Pero como ahora está en medio de una reñida batalla de reelección ha decidido apoyar la ley de Arizona.

Los conservadores apuntan el dedo acusar hacia el gobierno federal por no solucionar el problema migratorio. Aunque el Presidente Barack Obama ha expresado su apoyo para la reforma migratoria también ha reconocido que "no existe apetito para abordar el tema de la reforma este año." El Congreso controlado por los Demócratas, ha intentado introducir un proyecto de ley de reforma que abarca las inquietudes de ambos lados, pero aseguran que no puede pasar sin ayuda Republicana y el único senador Republicano que apoyaba la idea, Lindsey Graham de Carolina del Sur, se retracto.

En el centro de todo esto está el codiciado voto hispano. Los Republicanos arriesgan perderlo al ser percibidos como antiinmigrantes, pero se están asegurando de que los Demócratas tampoco lo obtengan. Si el Presidente Obama y los legisladores Demócratas no ponen todo su empeño en aprobar la reforma este año, serán condenados al ostracismo por los votantes latinos por no cumplir su promesa. Es una astuta maniobra política que bien pudiera salirle bien a los Republicanos. El resultado podría ser que los electores hispanos simplemente se abstengan de votar el noviembre.

Definitivamente las noticias no son buenas. Nuestro sistema migratorio seguirá resquebrajado. El voto hispano estará siendo socavado. Y la división racial solo se intensificará.

***

(Maria Elena Salinas es autora del libro

“Yo soy la hija de mi padre: Una vida sin secretos.”

Conéctese a www.mariaesalinas.com)

© 2010 by Maria Elena Salinas

Distributed by King Features Syndicate

VISÍTENME EN TWITTER:

 http://twitter.com/MariaESalinas

Y Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Maria-Elena-Salinas/449072550051

[siboneyes]

The Hyperbole Surrounding AZ’s New Law; Talk About Epistemic Closure!

2010 April 28
by Lori Ziganto

        I figured that I may as well jump on the new buzz word bandwagon and use the term epistemic closure. Even though I’m totally not into the term. It sounds icky and like something contagious. Nevertheless, epistemic closure is pretty much what all of the hysterical, over the top shrieking about Arizona’s law is; the result of living in a vacuum and being so ideologically close-minded that you have no problem accepting, and repeating, misinformation. The need to be righteously indignant takes over any logic or reason.

          Even sports writers are getting into the mix, asking the heads of sports leagues to boycott Arizona. It’s infuriating and not just because it is forcing me to write about sporty things. Says Kevin Blackistone, a national sports columnist:

         The University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Ariz., should lose the BCS National Championship Game scheduled to be played there next January unless Arizona legislators rescind soon and for good an anti-immigration law they just passed that gives police the right to stop and search for documents anyone police suspect of being in the country illegally.

        After all, that law means racially profiling people who appear to be Hispanic, no matter what Arizona lawmakers claim. That means making an entire group of people, as the NCAA spokesman said, uncomfortable in Arizona because of their heritage. That’s unquestionably wrong.

          We all should be uncomfortable with that, however. As Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles wrote earlier this month, comparing the law to Nazi Germany: “The Arizona legislature just passed the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law.

He then goes on to try to tie in apartheid and the tired, old bashing of South Carolina and the Confederate flag. Yawn.

        First, Mr. Blackistone (who calls himself Professor on Twitter) should read the actual law before spouting off about it. Or, in the alternative, he should stick to writing about sports and the successes of others. That’s far preferable than resorting to the sad Godwining of oneself by pulling the Nazi card.

           He’s not alone there; Joy Behar, in one of her standard fits of hysterical and inane shrieking, also broke out the Hitler card. (There is a video clip at the link, if you choose to expose yourself to it. I can’t in good conscience force one to be subjected to her. She’s enough to make me a misogynist.):

           On her April 26 broadcast, HLN’s Joy Behar suggested the new Arizona immigration law that would allow local law enforcement to arrest immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. is comparable to “World War II Germany.”

“Do you think it’s kind of – doesn’t it feel like sort of Nazism a little bit?” Behar asked. “I don’t want to overstate it, but ‘may I see your papers,’ you know?”

I

       t’s not surprising that Behar is clueless, as always. This is the same woman who said that a black president is “traumatic” for white men. No, Joy. While many know that Obama’s policies and the Left’s agenda are traumatic for the country, most people don’t focus on the density of a person’s melanin count. It’s a thing called equality. We treat everyone the same way. Post-racial; y’all should try it sometime.

         Which brings us to Obama and his irresponsible and erroneous comments regarding the Arizona law.

         The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

        What? I’m no constitutional lawyer, but even I know that is baloney. So, not only is the president of the United States purposely trying to sway public opinion against a state, but he is doing so with false information.

    As Allahpundit notes, people who have read, and understand, the bill have weighed in and put that issue to bed. Byron York explains in his article refuting Obama’s statement that the statute “threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Note that Obama is concerned only with “fairness.”

            What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”

           Gee, no mention of randomly harassing people slurping on ice cream cones there. He goes onto say:

            Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

             Bingo. And there is your epistemic closure. It’s a carefully measured law, wherein a state is desperately trying to fix a problem that is devastating to their state. Instead of reading the law and actually trying to grasp an understanding of it, the immediate reaction is to fly off the handle, full of righteous indignation, and screech Nazi and Racists™! Meanwhile, the only laws on the books that I am aware of in regards to skin pigmentation or ethnicity are laws that grant the same extra protection.

           This is exactly why there is no having a dialogue with the left.       Intellectual honesty isn’t their strong suit. Of course, this wouldn’t even be an issue if the federal government was doing its job — its primary job, in my opinion — and protecting our borders, not leaving states to resort to trying to do it themselves with far more limited resources.

       That’s not really “fair,” is it, Obama? I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to address that honestly, however. I know how you can’t spare your laser-like focus — on yourself.

[siboneyes]

THE GREEN CARD (ALLIEN REGISTRATION CARD)  ES LA TARJETA PARA EXTRANJEROS QUE SON RESIDENTES LEGALES EN ESTADOS UNIDOS.

            POR LEY DE FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, TODO EXTRANJERO RESIDENTE LEGAL EN ESTADOS UNIDOS TIENE QUE PORTAR EN TODO MOMENTO SU TARJETA DE RESIDENTE (THE ALLIEN REGISTRATION CARD) Y MOSTRARLA A CUALQUIER AUTORIDAD QUE ASI LO REQUIERA.

Franklin Roosevelt's 'New Deal' Immigration Laws
The Bulliten ^ | 30 April 2010 | Mark Steyn

        As I write, I have my papers on me – and not just because I’m in Arizona. I’m an immigrant, and it is a condition of my admission to this great land that I carry documentary proof of my residency status with me at all times and be prepared to produce it to law enforcement officials, whether on a business trip to Tucson or taking a 20-minute stroll in the woods back at my pad in New Hampshire.

        Who would impose such an outrageous Nazi fascist discriminatory law?

       Er, well, that would be Franklin Roosevelt.

       But don’t let the fine print of the New Deal prevent you from going into full-scale meltdown.

        “Boycott Arizona-stan!” urges MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, surely a trifle Islamophobically: What has some blameless Central Asian basket case done to deserve being compared with a hellhole like Phoenix?

        Boycott Arizona Iced Tea, jests Travis Nichols of Chicago. It is “the drink of fascists.” Just as regular tea is the drink of racists, according to Newsweek’s in-depth and apparently non-satirical poll analysis of anti-Obama protests.

       At San Francisco’s City Hall, where bottled water is banned as the drink of climate denialists, Mayor Gavin Newsom is boycotting for real: All official visits to Arizona have been canceled indefinitely. You couldn’t get sanctions like these imposed at the UN Security Council, but then, unlike Arizona, Iran is not a universally reviled pariah.

       Will a full-scale economic embargo devastate the Copper State? Who knows? It’s not clear to me what San Francisco imports from Arizona. Chaps? But, at any rate, like the bottled water ban, it sends a strong signal that this kind of hate will not be tolerated.

         The same day that Mayor Newsom took his bold stand, I saw a phalanx of police officers doing the full Robocop – black body armor, helmets and visors – as they marched down the street. Goosestepping? No, it’s actually quite hard to goosestep in those steel-reinforced kneepads. So just regular marching.

Naturally I assumed they were Arizona State Troopers performing a routine traffic stop. In fact, they were the police department of Quincy, Illinois facing down a group of genial Tea Party grandmas in sun hats and American-flag T-shirts. They were acting at the behest of President Obama’s Secret Service, who rightly recognized a polite knot of citizens singing “God Bless America” as a clear and present danger to the republic.

         If I were a member of the Quincy PD I’d wear a full-face visor, too, because I wouldn’t be able to look myself in the mirror. It’s a tough job making yourself a paramilitary laughingstock.

       And yet the coastal frothers denouncing Arizona as the Third Reich or, at best, apartheid South Africa seem entirely relaxed about the ludicrous and embarrassing sight of peaceful protesters being menaced by camp stormtroopers from either a dinner-theatre space-opera or uniforms night at Mayor Newsom’s re-election campaign.

          That’s Arizona. To the coastal commentariat, “undocumented immigrants” are the people who mow your lawn while you’re at work and clean your office while you’re at home. (That, for the benefit of Linda Greenhouse, is the real apartheid: the acceptance of a permanent “undocumented” servant class by far too many “documented” Americans who assuage their guilt by pathetic sentimentalization of immigration.) But in border states illegal immigration is life and death. I spoke to a lady this week who has a camp of illegals on the edge of her land: She lies awake at night, fearful for her children and alert to strange noises in the yard.

        President Obama, shooting from his lip, attacked the new law as an offense against “fairness”. Where’s the fairness for this woman’s family? Because her home is in Arizona rather than Hyde Park, Chicago, she’s just supposed to get used to living under siege? This lady has to live there, while the political class that created this situation climbs back into the limo and gets driven far away.

          Almost every claim made for the benefits of mass immigration is false. Europeans were told that they needed immigrants to help prop up their otherwise unaffordable social entitlements: In reality, Turks in Germany have three times the rate of welfare dependency as ethnic Germans, and their average retirement age is 50. Two-thirds of French imams are on the dole.

       But wait: what about the broader economic benefits? The World Bank calculated that if rich countries increased their workforce by a mere three per cent through admitting an extra 14 million people from developing countries, it would benefit the populations of those rich countries by $139 billion. Wow!

        As Christopher Caldwell points out in his book Reflections On The Revolution In Europe, “The aggregate gross domestic product of the advanced economies for the year 2008 is estimated by the International Monetary Fund at close to $40 trillion.” So an extra $139 billion works out to a spectacular 0.0035 per cent.

[siboneyes]

Obama Helped Kill Immigration Reform In 2007 - Will Media Remember?

By Noel Sheppard 

 Thu, 04/29/2010 -

           The immigration reform back on the front page thanks to Arizona's new controversial law, it's going to be very interesting to see how the Obama-loving press report what he did concerning this issue when he was a junior senator from Illinois in 2007.

             For instance, David Broder's "How Congress Botched Immigration Reform" published in Thursday's Washington Post didn't even mention Barack Obama's name. This seems particularly odd given this paragraph (h/t Jennifer Rubin): But once the bill hit the floor, it was attacked from both flanks. The most conservative Republicans -- Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana and Jeff Sessions of Alabama -- led the assault.

           They were joined by some civil libertarians and allies of organized labor who were dissatisfied with the bill's protections for guest workers. Democrat Byron Dorgan of North Dakota repeatedly tried to gut the guest-worker program before finally succeeding by one vote on his third effort.

        Broder curiously chose to ignore the fact that Barack Obama was, for all intents and purposes, the fateful deciding vote as reported by the late Robert Novak in June 2007: Story Continues Below Ad ↓

       Democrat Byron Dorgan, who seldom has tasted legislative success during 15 years in the Senate, scored a dubious victory last week. He was able to insert a poison pill in the immigration reform bill that aimed at emasculating the essential guest worker program.

    The 49 to 48 vote that passed Dorgan's amendment included surprising support from two prominent first-term senators: Jim DeMint, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, and Barack Obama. [...] The Dorgan amendment is a classic poison pill: designed to kill, not improve, the bill. Its passage makes resurrection of immigration reform all the more difficult.

       Decisive votes by DeMint and Obama were not appreciated by the bipartisan group that had crafted the bargain intended to ***********///////********//////****** America's borders while permitting an orderly flow of temporary workers. [...] Obama's vote for the poison pill was unexpected because he had participated, uninvited, one time in the bipartisan negotiating process. He had demanded and won a provision permitting immigrants to stay on the job after being designated "not employable" by the government under the new system until their appeals were exhausted.

           Obama's support for the Dorgan amendment then infuriated Republicans in the negotiating group who had opposed the concession to the presidential candidate.

   In case you're thinking the conservative Novak was being a tad partisan with his piece, here's what the Associated Press wrote on June 7 that year: A proposed immigration overhaul narrowly survived several strong Senate challenges, but it suffered a potentially deal-breaking setback early Thursday. Shortly after midnight, the Senate voted 49-48 to end a new temporary worker program after five years.

         The following year, as the presidential campaign was in full-swing, the Christian Science Monitor reported on April 17, 2008: Obama was part of the bipartisan group of senators who began meeting in 2005 on comprehensive immigration reform. But last summer, with the presidential nominating race well under way, Obama backed 11th-hour amendments - supported by labor, immigrant rights, and clergy groups - that Republicans saw as imperiling the fragile compromise. None of those measures passed.

         But Obama was part of a 49-to-48 majority that voted to end after five years a temporary worker program that had been a cornerstone of the immigration deal. The vote, backed by labor, was seen as a major setback to bipartisan negotiations.

          Given all this, one has to wonder why Broder recognized the significance of the Dorgan amendment, but totally ignored Obama's role in getting it passed.

        More importantly, as immigration takes center stage in the coming weeks, will everyone in the media forget what Sen. Barack Obama did to prevent reform three years ago? Stay tuned. —Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter

[siboneyes]

¿PORQUE OBAMA SE NIEGA A DAR ANMISTIA A LOS ILEGALES?

Dqban22

4/25/2010

         Arizona promulgó una ley para poner freno a la invasión de inmigrantes que entran al estado ilegalmente y ahora se habla de un boicot a ese Estado mientras políticos en México y líderes latinos en Estados Unidos se rasgan enardecidos e hipócritamente las vestiduras ante semejante osadía de querer Arizona hacer respetar la soberanía y las leyes de Estados Unidos.

      Cada día es más urgente resolver la crisis de la inmigración ilegal ya que junto a millones de personas trabajadoras y honestas, cruzan libremente la frontera de U.S. los sicarios del narcotráfico al extremo de haber convertido la capital de Arizona, Phoenix, en la capital de los secuestros de este hemisferio.  

        Ante el aumento exponencial del crimen, el Congreso de Arizona aprobó y la gobernadora firmó, una fuerte ley contra los inmigrantes ilegales para proteger los ciudadanos de ese estado, ley que es mucho mas humana que las leyes de inmigración de México referentes a los que entran ilegalmente al país, con la gran diferencia que en Estados Unidos las autoridades no maltratan, ni les roban, y mucho menos les violan a sus mujeres, tal como ocurre frecuentemente en México cuando detienen a los ilegales.

         La mendaz propaganda de los demócratas trata de culpar al partido Republicano difamándole como anti- inmigrante y anti-hispano, cuando lo cierto es que están habiendo más deportaciones bajo el régimen de Obama que durante el gobierno de Bush, y que mientras que el presidente Bush y McCain trataron de darle una amnistía a los que están ilegalmente en el país, Obama y los demócratas en control de ambas cámaras durante el segundo periodo de la administración de Bush se opusieron y bloquearon dicha amnistía.  ¡A pesar de ello los hispanos apoyaron a Obama!!!

      ¡CRIA CUERVOS QUE TE SACARAN LOS OJOS!!!... LOS HISPANOS VOTARON POR OBAMA Y LE DIERON EL TRIUNFO!!!

      No olviden que el presidente Reagan fue el único que les dio una amnistía a quienes estaban ilegalmente en el país, ni Carter, ni Clinton, ni mucho menos Obama, hizo nada por los hispanos, oponiéndose Obama a la amnistía durante su corto periodo como senador.

          Obama, quien cuenta con una gran mayoría en ambas cámaras, pudo pagarles dándoles la amnistía en los primeros 100 días de su régimen; pero, para mayor escarnio, bajo su gobierno se han duplicado las deportaciones de ilegales que las que ocurrieron durante el mismo periodo del gobierno de Bush...  ¿Y la amnistía?... hasta ahora, tarde, mal y ¡tal parece que nunca va a llegar!!!... 

          Si Obama hubiera cumplido con su palabra de darles la amnistía y controlado las fronteras de Estados Unidos, no hubiera sido necesario que Arizona promulgara esa ley para proteger sus ciudadanos. 

     ¡ASI PAGA EL DIABLO A QUIENES BIEN LE SIRVEN!!

“CON LA VARA QUE MIDAS SERAS MEDIDO.”

Ante la ola de indignación mal dirigida contra el gobierno de Arizona, es importante comparar la ley por ellos promulgada para copar con la inmigración ilegal con las leyes vigentes en México que lidian con ese problema.   Después de analizarlas, cabe preguntarles a aquellos que vociferan enardecidos contra la ley de Arizona, si ese estado y los Estados Unidos, no tienen el mismo derecho y el mismo deber de defender su soberanía y con el mismo celo que defiende México su soberanía.

Illegal Immigration: South of the Border Immigration Laws (Mexico's Immigration Laws)

DBKP ^ | 4/24/2010 | DBKP

      They Send Millions of Their ‘Tired, Poor, and Hungry” yet Have Better Laws Dealing With Own Illegal Immigration Problems.

     At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that no one has argued that the U.S. look at how other countries deal with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem.

      Let’s take a look at one particular country’s constitutional immigration law.

-Foreigners are admitted “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 this 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 laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

-The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

        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 116)

-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 117) Foreigners who are deported from this country 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 this country — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

      Under our country’s 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 will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

-Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from this country instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

-Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

       Citizens of this country who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

-A citizen of this country 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 this country will be fined. (Article 132)