From: An Anonymous Legal Professional [Email him]
A significant portion of the immigration flow is based on claims of persecution by foreign governments (religious, political, or sexual orientation), drug cartels, terrorists, etc.
Obviously, many (most) of these are, at best, greatly exaggerated, if not devoid of any proof, or completely fraudulent. Leaving the exact nature of the complaint aside for the moment, there is a more basic challenge that could, and must be made.
”Refugees” of Mexican nationality may be legitimate claimants—they could be persecuted by someone in Mexico—but the non-Mexicans’ can’t be: the risk of persecution vanishes when the applicant leaves the nation in which it is present.
How is a national from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Columbia, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua, etc. (let alone Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.) at risk from sinister forces in Mexico, who are entirely unaware of the refugee’s presence?
The answer is: All refugee claims made by foreign nationals, other than Mexican, are denied as entirely without substance. They must be cheek-swabbed, fingerprinted, photographed, and repatriated to their country of origin forthwith.
An excellent test question to be asked of those in Congress who wish to appear vigilant on the ”immigration question”: agree or disagree?
James Fulford writes: I think Mexico is a fine place for refugees from Honduras or wherever to stay, and it’s also fine for ”refugees” from Africa, a lot of whom have travelled to Mexico and headed straight for the American border.
Many years ago, I suggested that America should send refugees to Mexico, when Vicente Fox was Presidente. It was called Dear Mr. Fox: Please Find Attached our Poor/ Tired/ Dispossessed, Etc.