Is unlawful entry into Mexico a crime? In the U.S. there is a federal law making unauthorized entry into the country illegal. Does Mexico have similar law? If so, does anyone know of English translations?
Short Answer Is unlawful entry into Mexico a crime? In the U.S. there is a federal law making unauthorized entry into the country illegal. Does Mexico have similar law? Yes. Illegal entry into Mexico is illegal but, it is not a crime. The form of the question suggest that the person asking it may not be familiar with the distinction between something being &quot;illegal&quot; and something being a &quot;crime&quot;. The notion that they are the same is a common misconception. If so, does anyone know of English translations? An English translation of Mexico's immigration law can be found here. Long Answer Illegal entry into Mexico is illegal and has legally authorized consequences, although it is not a crime. Civil Consequences For Immigration Law Violations In Mexico Civil detention of unlawful entrants into Mexico is authorized by Articles 99-105 of Mexico's Migration Act of 2011. Deportation is authorized by Articles 114-125. There are civil fines for violating immigration laws in Mexico based on a multiple of the minimum wage, ranging from 20 days of minimum wage to 10,000 days of minimum wage, depending upon the offense and its severity (one day's minimum wage is 88.36 pesos). Articles 143-158. So fines range from 1767.2 pesos to 883,600 pesos for immigration violations. Today's exchange rate is 19.4 pesos to $1. So, these fines range from $91 USD to $45,546 USD. Immigration Related Crimes In Mexico Immigration crimes are found at Articles 159-162. According to the linked translation, these crimes are as follows: Article 159. A term of eight to 16 years in prison and a fine ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 days of the general minimum wage in effect in the Federal District will be imposed upon an individual who: I. Traffics one or more individuals in order to enter another country without the corresponding documentation and for the purpose of directly or indirectly obtaining a profit; II. Introduces one or more foreigners into Mexico without the corresponding documentation and for the purpose of directly or indirectly obtaining a profit; or III. Lodges or transports one or more foreigners in or through Mexico for the purpose of avoiding migratory inspection and in order to directly or indirectly obtain a profit. In order to actualize the crime provided for in this article, it will be necessary to demonstrate that the offender's intent is to obtain an indisputable, current, or impending economic benefit in cash or in kind. Penalties will not be imposed upon individuals of renowned moral rectitude who, for strictly humanitarian reasons and without seeking any benefit, assist an individual who has entered the country in an unlawful manner, even when such individuals [of renowned moral rectitude] receive donations or resources for continuing their humanitarian work. Article 160. The penalties indicated in the foregoing article will be doubled when the aforementioned conducts are carried out: I. With respect to children and adolescents, or when a child or adolescent who is not able to comprehend the significance of the action is induced to, motivated to, assisted in, or obligated to conduct any of the behaviors described in the previous article; II. Under conditions or using means that place or could place health, integrity, safety, or life at risk or that allow for inhumane or degrading treatment of the individuals affected by such conduct; or III. When the perpetrator or orchestrator is a public servant. Article 161. A public servant who assists, conceals, or prompts any person to violate the provisions of this Law in order to obtain a direct or indirect profit in cash or in kind will be sentenced to a term of four to eight years in prison and a fine ranging from 500 to 1,000 days of the general minimum wage in effect in the Federal District. Article 162. In regard to the crimes indicated in this Law, the Federal Office of the Public Prosecutor will exercise the criminal action on its own initiative. The Institute is obligated to provide the Federal Office of the Public Prosecutor with all elements necessary for prosecuting these crimes. So basically, the only immigration crimes in Mexico are human trafficking and immigration related bribery. Illegal entry into Mexico, per se, even if it is intentional, while it is illegal and may justify civil immigration detention, deportation and/or a civil fine, is not a crime. Of course, one could conceivably commit other crimes in connection with the immigration process (e.g. assaulting a government official, forging official documents), but illegal entry into Mexico, per se is never a crime, unlike the situation in U.S. immigration law, where illegal entry is both illegal and also a crime in many (but not all) circumstances.
Paying taxes need not have any legal connection to citizenship or potential citizenship. There is no constitutional provision, or law, which limits taxation to citizens or those on a path to citizenship. Legal immigrants, those on visas, and indeed tourists, must all pay various taxes, including hotel taxes and sales taxes. Lawful immigrants who work in the US must pay federal and (in most states) state income tax, and I believe some undocumented immigrants pay Federal income tax as well. Many countries tax people who are not citizens, nor immigrants in line for citizenship, and this has been true far back in history. Indeed the Romans taxed pretty much every inhabitant of and visitor to the Roman Empire, most of whom were not Roman Citizens. Things haven't changed that much since. It might be argued on philosophical grounds that such people should not be required to pay taxes, or should not be required to pay certain specific taxes. But that is not the law at this time, and this forum is not for debating what the law should be.
As indicated here, throwing away mail is the crime of obstructing mail. There is no exception for "junk mail" i.e. standard mail. It is possible (virtually guaranteed) that an individual postmaster or the USPS has a different disposition of the two kinds or mail when returned, but that is about USPS and not you. It is highly unlikely that you will find an official statement to the effect that it is "okay" to violate the law in the case of disposition of returned standard mail, even if in fact there is virtually no chance of being prosecuted for recycling. I assume that the junk mail is not addressed to "or current resident", or simply "Resident", because then the letter is addressed to you and you can do what you want.
Regarding the situation in Germany, it is not a crime by itself to travel to Syria (or in fact any other country), nor to take residence there. When people are arrested after such a trip, it is because they are suspected of having committed a crime during their stay. In this context, the crime could be, e.g., murder, abduction, or rape, but there are more specialized crimes, too, such as: Forming terrorist organisations (§&nbsp;129a StGB; translation) Preparation of a serious violent offence endangering the state (§&nbsp;89a StGB; translation) Preparation of a serious violent offence includes participating in a terrorist training camp where people are taught how to use weapons, construct explosive devices, etc. The definition of the crime was recently extended such that it is already punishable to make an attempt at leaving Germany with the intention of travelling to and participating in such a training camp. It is important to note that this intention would need to be demonstrated in court in order to get someone convicted; and someone travelling with different intentions, such as a journalist, would obviously not render oneself liable to prosecution. Outside of criminal law, there are other measures that the authorities may take to try and prevent people from travelling abroad if they are suspected future terrorists. As these are administrative measures and not criminal prosecution, the requirements for evidence are less strict. It has long been possible under German law to deny someone a passport (§&nbsp;7 PaßG; translation), or to revoke a passport that was already issued. The idea is that, without passport, the destination country or any transit countries are going to reject the traveller. This didn’t work too well in the case of Syria because a national ID card is sufficient for German citizens travelling to Turkey, which shares a land border with Syria. Therefore, also very recently, it was made possible to deny or revoke an ID card in much the same way as a passport (§&nbsp;6a PAuswG; no translation currently available). (Note that the translations I linked to are official but non-authoritative. In particular, be warned that the translation for §&nbsp;89a StGB at least does not yet reflect the latest amendments.)
Yes, you can ask but if they don’t they can come in anyway. The law gives them the right to enter in certain circumstances. Notwithstanding, any government employee that disclosed confidential information that they got in the course of their employment could be sued and possibly prosecuted.
Unless the Youtube Video shows them committing a crime, then no, they couldn't be arrested and tried for a crime. Them saying it, not under oath, is just hearsay that has no evidentiary value unless there is already other evidence they have committed a crime. In that case, its an admission. But there must be other, either circumstantial, or actual physical evidence of a crime. Past intoxication is not a crime, either. Possession of drugs, if caught with them is. But saying you got high is not. People have walked into police stations and confessed to murders. But with no evidence, no body, no name of a missing person, they can't even be held after the holding period for investigatory purposes expires. If the video shows them committing assault, or breaking and entering (there actually are idiots who post this stuff), the video is actual evidence of a crime and it is often used against them. The statements can be used to begin an investigation, but people don't usually confess to anything worth pursuing even an investigation. The fact that someone says they used to do something criminal is not enough. For all you ( meaning anyone ) knows, the statute of limitations has expired because they "pirated games" 10 years ago. Your comment is right on.
Can I refuse, turn around, and just not enter the USA ,get back on a plane, turn around and drive back, or do I have to give over my devices just because I showed up? In theory you can refuse and turn around. At a highway check point or in a private boat disembarking context, that is fairly feasible. If you turn around before you are searched and get back across the border, the border control officers can't pursue you. In a commercial airplane or commercial boat disembarking context, this is as a practical matter, not a very feasible thing to do, because you can't as a practical matter, turn around and even if you plan to return, the only way you can make it to a return trip without passing through customs is if the border control officer refuses to admit you. The law is that non-probable cause searches are permitted at border checkpoints (and indeed even near a border checkpoint on the in country side), but this isn't much clarity about when that authority ends (short of returning across an international boundary) when deciding not to enter at a border checkpoint. Also, there is also a split of authority over whether a cell phone search is allowed in the first place. The Second Circuit in the U.S. has held that it is not, but the law is unresolved in many U.S. states at this time.
According to the ACLU, there are certain questions you have to answer when entering the US, and in some states you may have to identify yourself when stopped and told to identify yourself. Nonimmigrant non-citizen may be required to answer questions about immigrant status posed by an immigration officer. Otherwise, you are not required to answer questions by police. A judge can order you to answer questions, but the police cannot. Also, "obstruction of justice" covers things such as destroying evidence, assaulting a process server, communicating with a juror, and can cover investigative demands by prosecutors, but not being uncooperative with police.