A Paper on Mex.Imm.Law by 2 NY Professors

21 03 2011
Mexico Institute

From the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center's webpage

This month, two professors at the University at Albany-SUNY published a paper analyzing Mexico’s immigration laws, with the title “Understanding Mexico’s Changing Immigration Laws.” The research was sponsored by the Mexico Institute of the Wilson Center,

The piece is highly critical of Mexico’s approach to immigration in its own territory, vis-à-vis its posture and demands towards the United States regarding how Mexican nationals generally, and those without legal status particularly, are treated in the U.S. It also details the effect that such approach had on the U.S. comprehensive immigration reform effort.

The authors highlight what they perceive as shortcomings of the  Ley General de Población (General Law of Population) of 1974 and the Instituto Nacional de Migración (Nat’l Immigration Institute, INM).

The Mexican government and Congress are currently working on a comprehensive immigration reform in Mexico. The Cámara de Senadores (Mexican Senate) should eventually vote on a bill proposal introduced by 10 Senators from all 3 main political parties to bring Mexican immigration law to day.

Beyond that effort, President Calderón enacted a Law for Refugees last January, and the INM has a new Manual since last year that better approaches immigration to Mexico. Both efforts are described in the Wilson Center paper. Also, the INM’s webpage is more transparent, relevant information is easily available, and pending cases can be checked online.

Understanding Mexico’s Changing Immigration Laws” provides facts and opinions, but neither are too sophisticated in legal analysis. I would have liked to see a more in-depth study of the elements and ingredients of the legal framework itself, but maybe it is just me. As an Assistant Chief Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency told me in a conference for a bond redetermination hearing in immigration proceedings with the immigration court told me after hearing my “wishes” in the particular case: and I wish I had another house and could retire. All in due course, I replied.

Hat tip: jjr, again.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: