Talk:Immigration to Mexico

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mexico High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The majority of the data and statistics are from 2000 almost 11 years have passed and those numbers must have changed significantly, the new census of INEGI (Mexican resource date for population) was performed last year 2010 and it will be available to the public on March 2011. For example about 1200 Russian citizens were living legally in Mexico in 2000 and now in 2010 (according to Russia Today in Spanish) it is rumored that number has increased to between 10 000 and 12 000. Similar changes and some even more dramatic could also apply to other nationalities in the 2010 census data results, the number of Central and South Americans must have increased in a considerable way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.138.9.30 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.censo2010.mx/cuandopublicaran.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.138.9.30 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the entire article yet, but the title itself is solecistic: It should be either "Emigration to Mexico" or "Immigration in Mexico". One does not "immigrate" to Mexico, one "emigrates" to Mexico. When one arrives in Mexico, one is an immigrant (and one remains an immigrant even after becoming a naturalized citizen). I can't edit the title of the article, but I did edit the boldfaced head in the summary. I also edited the first sentence of the summary which was very badly written, but did not change the content. Autodidact1 (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When are you going to correct the title? It is grammatically incorrect, as I stated in my comment above. Autodidact1 (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Immigration to Mexico" for this page is very misleading. This page is not talking about immigration into Mexico in a historical, quantitative, or comprehensive sense. Instead this page deals with contemporary immigrants or contemporary Mexicans that still self-identify as "immigrants". In the case of Salma Hayek, I noticed that the we gave her the "immigrant" label although she identifies herself only as Mexican. I think the problem here is that we are applying our understanding of immigration to the US and the history of those immigrant relations and a US understanding of self identity. I would argue that Mexico was and is a much more successful 'melting pot', be it through aggressive/repressive or liberal policies and social relations. Thus, simply dealing with populations whom we label or self identify as immigrants or of immigrant descent will not result in a meaningful understanding of immigration to Mexico. --Cesruiz1 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VERY VAGUE and imprecise. It does not make a clear case linking the title of the page and its substance. Perhaps because of the problem stated above. Also, the claim "Mexico did not receive as many immigrants as did US, Canada..." needs a citation and some quantitative figures to back this claim up. --Cesruiz1 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be more concise. 96.245.204.148 (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC) that thay have tovs frer free — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.73.178 (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have the same information as this article [1] to provide consistent information within the Wikis. M P M 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is going to add an "important people" from some country, please add people who has contributed to Mexico or to the world in something. Adding an actor/actress of dubious talent and transient fame, just because he/she was born in such country, is not good.Tesi1700 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mexico has extremely strict immigration law for both legal and illegal immigrants." "Certain legal rights are waived in the case of foreigners, such as the right to a deportation hearing or other legal motions."

Needs sources. Everything else has a source so should this.

"In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may make a citzen's arrest on the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."

I read the Constituion from which you are getting your information and this applies to Mexican citizens. The Mexican Courts are the ones that should interpret who else this applies to.

Try to cover the topic Immigration to Mexico, as in the actual immigrants in Mexico, instead of inserting random lines from the Mexican Constitution. By the way, if you do not agree with something/don't like the way somebody words something it is not vandalism. M P M 02:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may make a citizen's arrest on the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."

I removed it because it was ambiguous as to who it applies to. The Mexican Constitution never states anyone explicitly. Yes, the law is harsh but who does it apply to? Someone either has to one) clarify who it applies to (illegals/tourists/immigrants/citizens? who? if it applies to all then state it but provide a source) or 2) provide a source stating it applies only to foreigners and not Mexican citizens. If there is a problem with this bring it up in talk don't reinsert it. I already stated why I removed it.

From what I have read, there are plenty of sources online stating that Mexico has a strict policy on illegals, well at least on the ones from Central America, but I haven't found anything on legal immigration. I don't think anyone can make an assumption with Mexico has extremely strict immigration law for both legal and illegal immigrants. We need to base this on facts. It sort of contradicts the presence of legal foreigners especially the 1,000,000+ Americans. If legal immigration policy was that strict wouldn't Mexico be more like Japan?

Also, I added a brief intro on immigration to Mexico and included a list, though not exhaustive, of immigrant groups. I also added the names of two individuals, for each immigrant group, who are either immigrants themselves or descendants of immigrants. I added the section Immigrant Policies which includes most of the stuff from the previous version. I'll work on these sections some more but feel free to continue expanding it if you are more knowledgable in the area.

This doesn't make any sense The Mexican constitution restricts non-citizens or foreign born persons [4], Certain legal rights are waived in the case of foreigners, such as the right to a deportation hearing or other legal motions. Is it suppose to be one sentence or did something get cut-off in the first part? I left it as is. M P M 08:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying that all of the 1 million+ American immigrants in Mexico are legal? Wheres your source? I've talked to some americans who live in Tijuana, which is a popular city for Americans because of the cheap rent and the proximity to San Diego, and many of them have said that many of the other Americans in that city don't even bother to get a visa (or renew the visa's they did have) because the Mexican government doesn't enforce its immigration laws on its northern border.Mrsmith93309 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The act of committing a crime. When a person is arrested flagrante delicto - while committing a crime - the only evidence required to convict him is to prove that fact. Why do you keep removing article 16 from my edits? How would you feel if at the next illegal immigrant march anyone that claimed to be in this country illegally was detained by any legal citzen, arrested, and deported without trial? FLAGRANTE DELICTO does not have to specify which law because it applies to all law.

I removed because it might exclude immigrants and we don't know whether that is the case or not. Weren't blacks excluded from some of the basic freedoms of the Constitution (i.e. the right to vote)? For certain articles, it might be the same case for foreigners. There is more than one way to interpret the law. I don't think illegal immigrants are given a trial in the U.S. Well, the news hasn't mentioned any with all those recent round-ups and deportations. M P M 08:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is dangerous to quote laws and assume that they are enforced as written. The U.S. Constitution says that the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed, but in practice those citizens are not permitted to own machine guns or nuclear bombs. Many nations have elements in their constitutions which are not enforced. The custom of citizen's arrest is part of common law, but I doubt it is used widely in any country. Though not mentioned in the constitution, U.S. citizens may arrest lawbreakers, but so what? How many U.S.-related crime articles should mention that? My guess is roughly one article. In all, unless the Mexican Constitution mentions "flagrante delicto" in reference to immigration, or unless we have a source which connects it to immigration, then I don't see why it should be in this article. There are plenty of real issues to cover. -Will Beback 08:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving all the information as is. The paragraph below deals with immigration policy itself so I moved it to its own section without removing any information. That shouldn't bother anyone at all. I am only organizing and improving the page.

"Mexico has extremely strict immigration law for both legal and illegal immigrants. Certain legal rights are waived in the case of foreigners, such as the right to a deportation hearing or other legal motions. In cases of flagrante delicto, such as a person declaring they entered the country illegally, any citzen may make a citzen's arrest on the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities. 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. [2]. 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. Foreigners can serve in the military only during wartime [3]."

I put it under the subsection Immigration Policy because this whole paragraph, well most of it, reflects that. This article only needs a brief intro at the top describing Immigration to Mexico not not an entire paragraph about Immigration Policy.

My previous edit was meant to improve and organize the entire page in a neat and concise manner. I am only trying to provide clear and organized information to the readers. Articles like

both have brief intros about immigration/waves of immigration and sections about immigrant groups, statistics, policies, etc. So there shouldn't be a problem regarding the organization of this page.

M P M 08:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your changes are tiresome at best. i will now create more pages on a completely different topic in hopes that you and Will won't follow me with your endless debate. Darkstar1st 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article morph from immigration to languages about half way down? I recently updated "Italians" but note most of what follows that section is about languages and not immigration. Mariokempes 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico's restrictive policies on immigration, running for office if you're from an immigrant family, etc. should be added; they are quite interesting, especially when contrasted with what they demand of other nations. A2Kafir (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Mexico's policy of genocide endorced against it's indigenous population, that is hidden under the name "free trade" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.246.150 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this section makes no mention of immigrants from Central America. Data on immigration to Mexico produced by the Mexican govermnemt shows that the vast majority of immigrants to Mexico are from neighboring Central American countries, especially Guatemala and El Salvador. It is not made up of mainly white European people. Also, the author of this section does not show that the vast majority of the American-born population (at about 99%, from my research not on Wikipedia) are the American-born children of Mexican parents. This section seems to take a pro-European/White stance favoring only discussing European and other White immigration rather the the actual facts. Saopabs83 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to remove a very dubious claim in this article under the section on Irish immigrants to Mexico. Concerning the "Irish Confederate Army of Fort Yuma.' Fort Yuma was never under Confederate control, with the most westwardly presence of Confederates being a small scouting party some 100 miles east of Yuma, AZ. Interestingly, there are numerous mentionings of the "Irish confederate Army of Fort Yuma" on the internet but every one is a reference, most exact citations of this Wikipedia article. Edinyuma (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The area was settled in the turn of the century (1900s) anyway, so the Irish Confederate Army myth is just as that. Fort Yuma was in California which is part of the Union. I don't know the full story, but the myth is dubious. Unless they mean Yuma, AZ had Irish Confederate soldiers or what, the problem is when the edit is unsourced, it can't be proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.1.95 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of Mexico is a country of European immigrants, the steretype in US is everyone is brown, this is false, white is majority there are numerous sources that say Mexico is only 9% white this is false, how can that be when 21 states have white majorities above 75% the numbers add more than 9million. I think the US wants to retain the stereotype so it wont look dumb, when they finally say, Oops Mexicans can be white, Im a German Mexican who came in the early 1800s to Mexico, please get educated, plus irish tend to be northern Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caminosoto (talk • contribs) 06:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous comment. --189.160.0.204 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old comment, but in case anyone comes across it, the article in its current form does not really talk about White vs. Brown Mexicans.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entire sections, including sources and links to related articles, have been deleted.[4] While I support the use of sources for all content, this edit severely unbalanced the article. Unsourced material may be deleted, but it should be done with care rather than with a machete. Relevant links should be retained, at the very least in a "See also" section. Sections that are significant, but unsourced, should at least be replaced with short, non-controverisal summaries. And if the material is extensive and appears to have been obtained from sources (rather than just an essay) then we should make some effort to find sources instead of just deleting the material.   Will Beback  talk  16:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you claim I deleted? I made sure not to do so, if any were deleted it was an error. The size of a deletion is not part of WP guidelines for clean-up Darkstar1st (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the entire section on Spanish immigration to Mexico leaves a gaping hole in the article. It's better to have some non-controversial and unsourced statements than to imply, for example, that Russian immigration is more significant than Spanish immigration. Also, you deleted many relevant links, for which sources were not an issue. Finally, you deleted at least one source: "Five Generations On, Mexico's Koreans Long for Home", The Chosun Ilbo, 2007-08-16, retrieved 2009-07-30. Please restore the sections you deleted, restore the source you deleted, and restore the relevant links, such as

Irish Mexican.   Will Beback  talk  16:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Will, I will allow you to re-submit material that is sourced. Links do not belong in the text, rather "sources". I imply nothing, rather rely on facts. "It's better to have some non-controversial and unsourced statements" citation needed, I doubt WP would agree with you here. "which sources were not an issue", sources are the primary issue in WP. Also, the source(18 Chosun Ilbo) you claim I deleted is still in the current page, did you mean a different source? Darkstar1st (talk)

Did we look for any sources before deleting the material?   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Will, perhaps better than you looked when you claimed I deleted source #18 Chosun Ilbo? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be upset. I apologize for implying you've done wring. I just think we can do better by this article. Have we checked the linked articles for sources? Often, editors will copy info from one article to another without copyung the references too.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was upset when the A-team was cancelled from network tv in 1986, this I enjoy, and yes Will I did check, see above. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can do better, but I created this article in 2006 after the LA prop 287 riots and will yield to your edits, should they have sources. And now a WP tip for you, turn on your spell checker(I use Chrome), or don't drink and WP. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the alcohol; it's the smack that makes it hard to spell. That, or the two-inch keyboard on this handheld.   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Will, I always enjoy our convos. As the talk page has mentioned, the article may be tilted toward a specific point of view. I am here to correct this article, with your help. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what got deleted was the intro. Can you write a new one?   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."

This doesn't appear to be an immigration law. Rather it's just how their legal system works. This article should remain focused on immigration, and avoid details of their courts, prisons, etc work, unless we have sources that discuss them in the context of immigration. Do we have any source like that?   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. The original article did not contain this poor worded section title, I will change to reflect the title in other immigration pages Darkstar1st (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about the section name, so I don't know what you're referring to.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This doesn't appear to be an immigration law.", the section was poorly titled "immigration law", i changed it to reflect other WP pages about immigration. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Re-entry, after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment.

This material was deleted by an anon, who wrote:

• Removed information contrary to source, see article 123 repeal in 2008

It was restored by Darkstar1st, who wrote:

• the source is the Mexico website, Art 123 Covers the rights of workers

The citation for the material is http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/doc/140.doc. That document seems to say that Article 123 has been repealed. "Artículo 123.- (Se deroga)." Is there another source?   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not relevant to illegal aliens, rather a law concerning state workers. Federal Law of the State Service Workers, Regulating B) of Article 123 of the Constitution

DOF 28/12/1963 Darkstar1st (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the right reference for this law?   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Michelle Malkin is not a good source for Mexican law. 2) Please don't copy text from other websites - it's either copyright violations or plagiarism.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Opinion, and not shared by her editors and The National Review, a widely respected/published periodical. She cites her sources in the article, and the are not copyright as it is from the Mexicans own law. 2)Plagiarism is impossible in WP as it is against WP:RS self-published Darkstar1st (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malkin is a pundit, not an expert in international law. I'm sure there are better sources for Mexican law. And yes, what Malkin writes is copyrighted. Please doen't copy blocks of text from other sites or publications.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Holding the immigration of foreigners to the terms deemed appropriate, and seek better assimilation of these to the national average and their proper distribution throughout the country. Restrict the immigration of nationals when the national interest so requires. Ensure the planning of urban population centers, to ensure effective delivery public services required."
  • article 3, sec. 7-9[5]

I'm fairly confident that the Mexican Constitution is not written in English. What's our source for this text? Also, we should give it a proper citation. Does "article 3, sec. 7-9" refer to the constitution? Which title and chapter is it?   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Will, not the constitution, but the gen law of pop and sourced. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source? Is it this link? http://www.mexicanlaws.com/SEGOB/General_Law_of_Population.htm I don't see the material on that page. Am I just missing it?   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original in Spanish: http://www.conapo.gob.mx/transparencia/lgp.pdf Darkstar1st (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) The material you placed in the article is not in Spanish. Who did the translation? 2) Source material doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If this isn't copyrighted then it'd be appropriate to include in the Spanish-language Wikisource. 3) Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources, not primary sources like the text of laws.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding secondary source now Darkstar1st (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we should delete what you added and re-write some content based on that source.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will add more sources, the additions do not need rewrite, as they are very basic. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not answering my questions: who did that translation? Why are we adding a big chunk of source material to the article? I'm going to go ahead and delete it, since the translation is unsourced and the material is inappropriate regardless. Short quotations from source material, with the original language quoted for comparison, are acceptable when used to substantiate a point made by a secondary source. See

WP:PSTS.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have supplied the link to the law, and 2 supporting links, if you feel the law has been misunderstood, please point out which passage instead of deleting the whole section Darkstar1st (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delete again the material in quotation marks. You haven't answered where you got the translation from, and wherever you got it from it's inappropriate. You can add some material summarized from the Washington Times and Fox News, but clearly that material isn't from those sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the quotation marks as requested. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never request that the quotation marks be removed. I requested that the source material, apparently translated from Mexican law, be removed. I'm not sure why we're having so much trouble communicating, but it's not helping. I'm going to remove all of the information that's not in the two secondary sources. If there are parts of the law that you want to quote, to illustrate assertions in the secondary sources, then please cite the law properly, chapter and verse.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the material to make it easier to comprehend. Please only remove material you feel is incorrect Darkstar1st (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With contentious material, it's best to cite each sentence. That way readers don't have to struggle to comprehend the sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need, it is now very clearly marked. I suggest we call in an expert as there seems to be some confusion about the actual law in Mexico, despite it being published by the state, and reviewed by several news sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is properly sourced, I should be able to check the secondary sources and find pretty much everything in them. Later this evening I'll do a careful review and I'll move here any materials that don't appear to be in those sources. If there are experts then they can help too. But expertise isn't really necessary since we're simply summarizing the secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, thank you for your help on my article. Without your dogged analysis of my sourced, i would have never uncovered the more extreme sections of this law, such as "must serve national interest/progress, prove ability to sustain income, restriction from overpopulated areas, etc. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All kinds of things can be found in lawbooks, but the job of Wikipedia editors isn't to search through them looking for odd-looking language^{[citation needed]}. If something isn't mentioned in a secondary source then we probably shouldn't mention it here.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have more sources and will add them as needed. The law in Mexico is not hiding, the government has a theme of transparency. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add away. As I wrote before, it's best with contentious material to source everything.   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will add as you delete. "Entire sections, including sources and links to related articles, have been deleted." However to avoid the above accusation by other editors, i suggest you only delete what you find to be incorrect Darkstar1st (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if it's correct or incorrect unless it's verifiable. If it's not cited, then it's not verifiable. So please add references to anything that you don't want deleted.   Will Beback  talk  03:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Nat. newspapers, tv stations and the gov of mexico's own site aren't enough, i'll wait to see what you find incorrect, and supplement as needed. Darkstar1st (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• The goal of immigration law is to distribute within Mexico, immigrants with the skills needed in different areas.

Where does this appear?   Will Beback  talk  05:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

line 17 of the original source i had listed before we began this debate: http://www.mexicanlaws.com/SEGOB/General_Law_of_Population.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 06:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the goals of immigration law is to distribute within Mexico, immigrants with the skills and abilities needed in different areas.

You've copied that material almost verbatim. It should be in quotation marks with the ellisions marked (...) Otherwise it's plagiarism.   Will Beback  talk  15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will do Will, thx! Darkstar1st (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Immigration must be deemed appropriate, and assimilate to the national average and their proper distribution throughout the country.

Source?   Will Beback  talk  16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article 3, section 7 of gen law of population, but we have already discussed this Will, see above, "Does "article 3, sec. 7-9" refer to the constitution? Which title and chapter is it? Will Beback talk 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Darkstar1st (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I challenge you to read the law before making anymore edits. When you find something you think is incorrect, then we can resume our debate, thx! Darkstar1st (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no citation for it in the text. If I'm following along correctly, Article III, Sections 7-9 say

• VII.- Sujetar la inmigración de extranjeros a las modalidades que juzgue pertinentes, y procurar la mejor asimilación de éstos al medio nacional y su adecuada distribución en el territorio;
• VIII.- Restringir la emigración de nacionales cuando el interés nacional así lo exija;
• IX.- Procurar la planificación de los centros de población urbanos, para asegurar una eficaz prestación de los servicios públicos que se requieran;

Google translates those as

• VII .- Holding the immigration of foreigners to the terms deemed appropriate, and seek better assimilation of these to the national average and their proper distribution throughout the country;
• VIII .- restrict the emigration of nationals when the national interest so requires;
• IX .- Ensure the planning of urban population centers, to ensure effective delivery public services required;

If that's the only source then why are we quoting the law directly? Where is the secondary source we're using for this? Further, this all seems like preamble type material. According to whom is this important material on the immigration laws of Mexico? According to Darkstar1st? If that's the only perons who thinks this is important enough to report then we should remove it.   Will Beback  talk  17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two secondary sources listed, have you read the other sources, or the rest of the law? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do those sources say about the distribution of immigrants throughout the country?   Will Beback  talk  17:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

they say regulating the "distribution of immigrants throughout the country" is more strict than the policy in other countries. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that? I don't see anything about distribution in either secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

line 24 of source 10: http://article.nationalreview.com/432764/how-mexico-treats-illegal-aliens/michelle-malkin Darkstar1st (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will please re-review this article and it's sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean:

• The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?

Then that's what we should be summarizing. Something like, "According to Malkin, Mexico can bar immigrants in order to maintain the balance of demographics." And please makwe sure that each sentence is properly cited. That'll speed this process.   Will Beback  talk  17:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I think it is time to elevate this issue. You seem to be opposed to the information included in the Gen law of Population be included on WP. The passages are very clear, and supported by numerous well respected national sources. You do not disagree with the material, rather the sources supporting the material, EVEN as the primary source is the gov of Mexico. I am calling for an expert to help us complete the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said the source was Malkin? Could you please quote the material you're summarizing, or at least cite the sentences as I've asked repeatedly? You keep avoiding my questions so it's hard to make any progress.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I keep giving you the line, page, article, section, etc. Each time when I point out the source, you move on to a new sentence without acknowledging the previous. We need outside help to resolve this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please just add the correct source for each sentence that you added. Anything that's unsourced will be deleted. Is that too hard to underrstand?   Will Beback  talk  21:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, we should just wait for an expert. Each time you make an edit, I point out the source that is clearly marked. I encourage you to focus on editing what you feel is incorrect, rather than what does not have a secondary source, as the primary source is Mexico herself Darkstar1st (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There are also signals that more experienced editors and administrators are leaving due to stubborn behavior, let alone outright hostility." "Without high-quality, multilingual content, we will not be able to reach broader audiences.", this is from the WP strategic vision, lets work together to supply the most accurate information to the largest number of people. If you have a better way to link the sources, by all means proceed. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We started this discussion with you insisting that unsourced material must be removed. Now you're insisting that it must be retained. Primary sources should only be used sparingly, an in this case to illustrate material already found in secondary sources^{[citation needed]}. I've asked you repeatedly to cite the material you added, and when I ask you for specific you keep changing your answers. This is turning into a bit of a farce. I'm going to delete th uncited sentences you added, and you're welcome to restore them after you've added specific references for each one. If you have some expert you're consulting then his or her input would also be welcome, but it doesn't affect what needs to be done here.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source. Will, where did you read "use primary sources sparingly"? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, rather than just citing the material you added, you keep arguing over it? I've posted this link a couple of times already:

]

Actually, that may be our trouble Will. We are not arguing the accuracy of the info, which you do not deny, rather the use of primary sources. WS:PSTS "primary sources are permitted" The source is listed in Spanish, and a link to an English version by mexicanlaw.com Darkstar1st (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems here. Can you say why you aren't adding citations to the material, as you've been asked? 05:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please list the problems. Your last objection was corrected after reviewing WP:PSTS. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the material isn't cited. Please cite the chapter and title of the citations of Mexican law, if that's where everything came from. And if that is where it all came from then the other sources don't belong.   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to provide the chapter and title of each. Thank you for changing your mind about the primary source, together we will build a good article. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you'll cite the sources so they can be verified.   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may verify now. I will add the chapter/verse, but the source is ready for your review now. I suggest you read the entire law, to get a feel for the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article/section added now Darkstar1st (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Now we can proceed in a more orderly fashion.   Will Beback  talk  17:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Law of Population" is to regulate immigration as to volume, structure, and distribution.

There seems to be a verb missing from this sentence.   Will Beback  talk  17:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, hilarious, foreigners have a different word for everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 17:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which foreigner are you talking about? Didn't you write that?   Will Beback  talk  17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you got it, that was the joke :) Darkstar1st (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you fix it, please?   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will allow you to correct the grammar Will. This article has been a chore for almost 5 years now, and after this last struggle over "primary sources" and the other minor, yet crucial additions you required, I am quite exhausted. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't correct it because I don't know what you wanted to say. It isn't cited so there's no where else to look for guidance.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I think we both need a break from this article for a few days or weeks. I am sure another WP will be able to address your concerns in time. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution I can see for most of this stuff is to delete it. When you have time to write text using proper sources and grammar then we can start over again.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were did they get all that information and what is the cite, because in the Spanish Wikipedia they all are different except for the United States and other countries so were did they find this info and can i please have the site they got the information--Alex 18:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)AlexR.L.

On a more specific, but related, note, the article seems to say there are about 70,000 Americans in Mexico, but in the table, the number is closer to 738,103. Is the former number in reference to those who are US-born? Or is the latter including tourists?

Someone needs to clarify this as it is an important point.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 17,000 to 30,000 French nationals in Mexico ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFV210 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.inegi.gob.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/contenidos/Articulos/sociodemograficas/nacidosenotropais.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Immigration to Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6QEwZjsAo to http://www.politicamigratoria.gob.mx/work/models/SEGOB/CEM/PDF/Estadisticas/Poblacion_Extranjera/ExtranjerosResMex.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101114163836/http://www.inegi.gob.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/estudios/sociodemografico/ext_en_mex/extraen_mex.pdf to http://www.inegi.gob.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/estudios/sociodemografico/ext_en_mex/extraen_mex.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Immigration to Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210212235/http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic2015_resultados.pdf to http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/hogares/especiales/ei2015/doc/eic2015_resultados.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politicamigratoria.gob.mx/work/models/SEGOB/CEM/PDF/Estadisticas/Poblacion_Extranjera/ExtranjerosResMex.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Immigration to the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]