Skip to main content

From Fox News. Yes Larry that right wing news organization. Big Grin


Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country's own interests and its citizens' rights are at stake.


Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.

The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.

Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense -- anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona's.

Arizona's policy, which President Felipe Calderon derided during a recent U.S. trip as "discriminatory," states police can't randomly stop people and demand papers, and the law prohibits racial profiling.

Mexican law, however, requires law enforcement officials "to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."


Amnesty International recently issued a report claiming illegal immigrants in Mexico -- typically from Central America -- face abuse, rape and kidnappings, and that Mexican police do little to stop it. When illegal immigration was a criminal offense in Mexico, officials were known to seek bribes from suspects to keep them out of jail.

But Mexico said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens' rights and that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries' work on combating drug trafficking and related violence.

Citing "grave concerns," Mexico said its interest in having predictable, consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one state.

"Mexican citizens will be afraid to visit Arizona for work or pleasure out of concern that they will be subject to unlawful police scrutiny and detention," the brief said.

It will be up to a U.S. District Court judge to decide whether to accept the brief along with similar ones submitted by various U.S. organizations.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law on April 23 and changes to it on April 30, has lawyers defending it in court.

In a statement issued late Tuesday, Brewer said she was "very disappointed" to learn of Mexico's filing and reiterated that "Arizona's immigration enforcement laws are both reasonable and constitutional."

"I believe that Arizona will ultimately prevail and that our laws will be found constitutional," Brewer added.

Brewer and other supporters of the bill say the law is intended to pressure illegal immigrants to leave the United States. They contend it is a needed response to federal inaction over what they say is a porous border and social problems caused by illegal immigration. They also argue that it has protections against racial profiling.

Mexican officials previously had voiced opposition to the Arizona law, with Calderon saying June 8 that the law "opens a Pandora's box of the worst abuses in the history of humanity" by promoting racial profiling and potentially leading to an authoritarian society

U.S. officials have said the Obama administration has serious concerns about the law and may challenge it in court. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently went further by saying a lawsuit is planned.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
From Fox News. Yes Larry that right wing news organization.

Oh, you mean Faux News? Wink

And while I agree a nation challenging another's nation's laws in that other nation's courts is pretty bizarre, stranger things have happened.

What about that nation which did a preemptive attack on another sovereign nation, - as a stated response to a terrorist attack carried out by terrorists NOT from that country - captured that nation's ruler, put him on trial and summarily had him executed?

No, really. THAT actually happened, too.

It is all about perspective, my friend.

Perspective.

Larry

P.S. -

Ever hear of the Nuremberg Trials? "My country, right or wrong" didn't serve as much of a defense for those on trial in that esteemed court.
quote:
Oh, you mean Faux News?


Yes Larry. I feel a personal responsibility to show you the news that you will not find on your news source C communistNewsNetwork


Sorry I must go off to work now. YOUR administration needs my tax dollars ! Razzer

Jeff

PS: In support of the ever expanding social programs I think you need to demonstrate your personal commitment
Sell the Pantera . Buy a Prius. And give the balance of the $ to Obama ! Smiler
Larry we are way way off topic now. And I sense Geo with his finger on the delete button. Wink

But my last comments (I promise Geo !) to you are :

I guess CNN has not changed their name yet to the Socialist News Network.

And when is your ilk going to stop blaming "W" for everything wrong in this country ?

We all know that unions caused most of our economic problems. Big Grin

Jeff
[quote]And when is your ilk going to stop blaming "W" for everything wrong in this country ?[/quote

As soon as your ilk realizes that the majority of the current deficit can be traced to the Bush-era tax cuts and the drain caused by the Bush-created War on Terror.

Larry - IBEW Local #100

P.S. - I didn't mention 'everything', just the economic crisis.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Picture_6
I dissagree with both Larry and Jeff. There never was a war on terror. It was just rich oil tycoons sending the youth of the poor to die for profits. And Jeff, why would you care about a country that doesn't have balls enough to defend itself? The worst attack on primarily civillians in our nations history was addressed by a president that told everyone to get back to shopping. They won't even try to close the borders because industry gets slave labor and socialists get votes.
But you two just keep arguing about which wrestler is better, because that is what the people pulling the strings want you to do. Free bread and circus.
Personally I would not waste my energy on it because I no longer care what happens to this country or any other. The globalists have won, let them claim their prize. I hope the maggots choke out their last breaths.
Dear Larry. I do remember you telling me about your union affiliation It was my attempt (easy) to draw your ire.

Sadly this is far from a humorous topic. The ILLEGAL immigration issue has been a major problem for decades. ALL politicians are to blame.
It is a political hand grenade that neither party will deal with. They are all terrified to alienate the Hispanic community legal or illegal.

If the friggin federal government would just enforce the laws ALREADY on the books AZ would not have been forced to pass their own legislation. Now AZ can be easy targets of the left (sorry Larry) as racists etc.

It is and always will be about politics. We as American citizens just suffer from their actions or lack their of. Just pawns of the system. Right ,left, Republican or Democrat all just pawns.

Jeff
Proud Conservative ( Larry this does not equal Republican) AMERICAN


DETOM I hear your frustartion but apathy is NOT a solution. Heck you are a "Volunteer" !
Do not give up no matter what side you lean towards.
This f'ed up country is still the GREATEST nation God has ever created.
(Sorry Canucks but we are.)
Sorry Jeff, As much as the USA appeals (appealed) to me. I will remain Canadian. The USA is a great neighbour (300 days a year), great trading partner, but many aspects of life (for me) are no-contest better here. It ain't no cup of tea, but I wouldn't trade it.

Love ya as a friend, nice to visit, but a Canuck for life

Denis
quote:
In support of the ever expanding social programs

Just like to point out...

Until this year, Social Security has always paid its own way. More coming in than going out.

IF that surplus had been reserved to pay out only for SS benefits, instead of helping cover-up a portion of the excessive spending done over the years, SS would have ZERO problems.

Name one other government program that has managed to pay its own way over the years. You can't.

Yet now the spin masters are labeling SS an 'entitlement expenditure', and will be trying to put it at the top of the chopping block list.

Just removing the cut-off point for the SS payroll tax would provide more than enough additional funds to make it secure for the foreseeable future. As it is, in relation to total income, the SS 'burden' falls more heavily on all of us that earn less than $106,800.00 than it does on those earning more - those who are arguably able to afford the additional tax.

As I am on the subject, anyone still think it would have been a good idea to have put our SS funds into the stock market?

Larry
Last edited by lf-tp2511
quote:
Originally posted by LF - TP 2511:
quote:
In support of the ever expanding social programs

Just like to point out...

Larry



Larry it has almost been a full day on this thread. I am sure that everyone is getting tired of our diatribe.
Plus you have taken my thread way off topic.

I also hope a job comes your way soon. Even though you have too much time on your hands with your replies, I do enjoy your latest pics !

Nightie nite now to my favorite left wing socialist Pantera owner.
Jeff
[As I am on the subject, anyone still think it would have been a good idea to have put our SS funds into the stock market?

YES!!!! Even with the downturn in the market I could have actually made money on the money the feds stole (took) from me. Pretty lousy investment when: You can't remove funds as you see fit, when correcting for inflation you take out less money than you put in, you have no choice to participate or not, and MOST IMPORTANT your contribution is seized by the government when you die. SWounds like its aptly named - Socialist Security. Never should have been put into law. No constitutional basis whatsoever.
quote:
No constitutional basis whatsoever.

Really?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Yes, really. If you use the general welfare clause for this then you have to assume the government is responsible for EVERYTHING. Isn't food general welfare? How about cable TV? Internet? Vacations?
The general welfare clause is the liberal catch all to force anything and everything down our throats with the assertion that the government knows whats best.
Tell me how social security going bankrupt and forcing my participation is promoting the general welfare?
quote:
Tell me how social security going bankrupt and forcing my participation is promoting the general welfare?

I already covered that myth of SS financing.

quote:
Until this year, Social Security has always paid its own way. More coming in than going out.

IF that surplus had been reserved to pay out only for SS benefits, instead of helping cover-up a portion of the excessive spending done over the years, SS would have ZERO problems.


(signed)

Larry
Thanks allot guys !
You have taken my thread waaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic.

I started this thread on a topic that I thought
most of us could agree upon.

That is the insanity of Mexico filing a law suite against the state of AZ.

I deliberately do not start political threads of Republican vs. Democrat because they ALWAYS turn into these kind of pissing contests.

Geo I know that you are lurking here so do us all a favor and lock or delete this thread.
quote:
That is the insanity of Mexico filing a law suite against the state of AZ.

All I did was point out the difference between sane and insane is basically a product of perspective.

What one sees as insanity, another sees as necessary.

In both the cases sighted in our first two posts, there are (of course) two viewpoints.

Perspective.

What was that old saying?

You must walk a mile in a man's shoes before you attempt to judge him.

Larry
quote:
If the government of Mexico came over and filed a law suite against your union for not allowing illegals to be members, you would be OK with this ?
.........Yes. That is how things are challenged in this country, through the courts and at the polling place.

Does your union require proof of US citizenship ?
.............My Union requires the following for identification purposes:
------------------
Provide a positive Photo ID (Drivers License, Government ID Card, etc.) at the time of application.
------------------
Or does your union allow members who are not US citizens ?

Perhaps, see above.

Volley to your side of the net.... Wink

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Picture_13
Larry,
I commend you for being true to your beliefs.

But unless I am reading your response wrong your union knowingly accepts illegal aliens as members. And by doing this is in fact in violation of the law. Is this OK as long as they can pay their membership dues ?

You do remember the law Larry, the constitution etc. , the foundation that this democratic society was founded upon . Laws that enable a society to function without anarchy.

Or is the law selective for liberals and only to be used when convenient for your situation?

This is not about what makes you feel warm, fuzzy and singing kumbya. It is about enforcing the law. You can not just whine about how unfair a law is and avoid it.
(Remember this thread is about the federal government not enforcing their own law. Which than caused AZ to pass their own law which basically mirrored the federal law which remains not enforced )

If you do not like the law than find a way to change it.

"That is how things are challenged in this country, through the courts and at the polling place." (your own words sir !)

Selective enforcement of the law for political advantage is not acceptable.
Last edited by Pantera 3rd&Last
DETOM I hear your frustartion but apathy is NOT a solution. Heck you are a "Volunteer" !
Do not give up no matter what side you lean towards.
This f'ed up country is still the GREATEST nation God has ever created.
(Sorry Canucks but we are.)[/QUOTE]

Thanks Jeff, I was in a bad mood when I wrote that, but I am just getting old and tired. Tired and old.
quote:
But unless I am reading your response wrong your union knowingly accepts illegal aliens as members. And by doing this is in fact in violation of the law. Is this OK as long as they can pay their membership dues ?

A violation of WHAT law?

The Union is not an employer, unless you become a Union Business Agent, Business Manager, or office employee. It is, in essence, a fraternal organization. I doubt if Lion's, Rotary or Boys and Girls clubs ask for proof of citizenship.

Through our apprenticeship program, we provide training. There is not requirement to provide proof of citizenship for that education.

Now, if any of the signatory employers fail to verify any Union member's or apprentice's legal status for employment, that would be their issue.

I'm not ducking this question, just pointing out that it does not apply to Union membership, as pointed out above.

Larry

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Picture_17
Uh oh we're on the union debate.....

In Canada I see a lot of union guys doing as little as they can and you can't fire their asses.

What I saw in the UK was unions driving industry to extinction, the Auto Workers was the same here as I see it.

In the UK there are also generations of people who have never worked as they have no incentive to when the government gives them a welfare/social check every week.

Isn't Obama reported to be modeling the US on the UK.....

Julian
Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×