Mexico urges US court to block part of Arizona law

[CuteOldGuy]

Really? Is this really Mexico's business?

The Mexican government has urged a U.S. court to stop Arizona from enforcing a minor section of the state's 2010 immigration law that prohibits the harboring of illegal immigrants.

Lawyers representing Mexico asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a filing Wednesday to uphold a lower-court ruling that blocked police from enforcing the ban. Mexico argued the ban harms diplomatic relations between the United States, undermines the U.S.'s ability to speak to a foreign country with one voice and encourages the marginalization of Mexicans and people who appear to be from Latin America. (OP Note: Isn't that for the US to argue?)

"Mexico cannot conduct effective negotiations with the United States when the foreign policy decisions of the federal governments are undermined by the individual policies of individual states," lawyers for the Mexican government said in a friend-of-the-court brief.

The harboring ban was in effect from late July 2010 until U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked its enforcement on Sept. 5. Two weeks before Bolton shelved the ban, she said during a hearing that she knew of no arrests that were made under the provision.

The prohibition has been overshadowed by other parts of the law, including a requirement that went into effect on Sept. 18 that officers, while enforcing other laws, question the immigration status of those suspected of being in the country illegally.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the questioning requirement earlier this year, but also struck down other sections of the law, such as a requirement that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers. The nation's highest court didn't consider the harboring ban.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure known as SB1070 into law and serves as the statute's chief defender, has asked the appeals court to reverse Bolton's ruling on the harboring ban.

Brewer spokesman Matt Benson said Arizona's harboring ban mirrored federal law and that Mexico was interfering with a matter in U.S. courts.

"Mexico's own immigration laws are significantly more heavy-handed than anything imposed as a result of SB1070. Does the Mexican government believe the nearly identical U.S. federal law harms diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Mexico?" he said.

This wasn't the first time a foreign government has chimed in during disputes over the immigration law.

In 2010, Mexico urged the courts to declare the law unconstitutional, and 10 other Latin American countries had joined in expressing their opposition to the law.

Brewer had said the foreign governments were meddling in an internal legal dispute between the United States and one of its states.

No other countries have joined in Mexico's latest friend-of-court brief.

Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2043518...#ixzz2GJjs15kN

[Chica Chaser]

Follow the money. This is all revolving around how much money is sent back to Mexico from legal and illegal workers here.

Amid U.S. unemployment crisis, illegal aliens sending even more money to Mexico

Remittances, such as Western Union Moneygrams from the United States represent the second largest source of income for Mexico. In 2009, Mexican workers, mostly illegal aliens, sent home $21.2 billion in such transfers.

Furthermore, according to the Inter-American Development Bank, all of Latin America received $69.2 billion in remittances from the U.S. in 2009 alone.

Thus, dispelling the myth that illegal aliens contribute a great deal to our economy. The fact is that the overwhelming amount of the wages earned by illegal aliens is not spent in this country, but simply sent back home.

This filing isn't going anywhere with the old battleaxe we have out here

[JD Barleycorn]

Remember how the dems used to make fun of Jan Brewer?

[Yssup Rider]

You mean the loving Kayla of the Cocktus League?

[Chica Chaser]

She a piece of work for sure.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Remember how the dems used to make fun of Jan Brewer?

The Dems here don't have an exclusive on that one JD.

[gnadfly]

Imagine 10-20 million now "not illegal" aliens walking into the US Social Security office and applying for benefits. Don't say "Well, you didn't pay SS tax." They will counter, "I worked in this country for these employers for years, its not my fault you didn't collect it." The soon to be liberal Supreme Court will be extremely sympathetic.

This country has been fundamentally transformed. There will be no going back.

[i'va biggen]

Liberal Supreme Court?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Liberal Supreme Court?

They are getting old, President Obama has four years for just one 'consevative' to die off, and you then have a 5-4 court leaning to the liberal bent.

Elections have consequences. All of the sorry ass "white guys" who sat on their dead asses and didn't vote this last election have no complaints. You have a President that will stack the court with more Kagans and Sotomayors', and the Country will change. For the better or worse will have to be delt with by our Children and Grandchildren.

As for the whole immigration thing, that train left the station long time ago. What we have is what we are stuck with. My best advice is adapt and learn to live with it.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Elections have consequences. All of the sorry ass "white guys" who sat on their dead asses and didn't vote this last election have no complaints. You have a President that will stack the court with more Kagans and Sotomayors', and the Country will change. For the better or worse will have to be delt with by our Children and Grandchildren.

Are you talking about the same type of change that occurred when Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush and Bush) stacked the court with Far Right Wing Justices like Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas?

That kind of change?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

...with Far Right Wing Justices like ...Thomas?

That kind of change?

Really?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

They are getting old, President Obama has four years for just one 'consevative' to die off, and you then have a 5-4 court leaning to the liberal bent.

Elections have consequences. All of the sorry ass "white guys" who sat on their dead asses and didn't vote this last election have no complaints. You have a President that will stack the court with more Kagans and Sotomayors', and the Country will change. For the better or worse will have to be delt with by our Children and Grandchildren.

As for the whole immigration thing, that train left the station long time ago. What we have is what we are stuck with. My best advice is adapt and learn to live with it.

None of the so called five conservative Justices are close to retiring. There might be two more SCJ that Obama appoints but they will be two of the most liberal. So it will be a net zero for liberals, where the GOP missed the boat was this was their chance to really pack the court with right wing loons. Mitt fuc'd it for ya.

What really hurt the Lib's was Sandy Day retiring early and letting Bush appoint her replacement. I still think there was something fishy about that! LOL...now I'm the guy with the tin foil hat!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by bigtex

...with Far Right Wing Justices like ...Thomas?

That kind of change?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Really?

Yes, really!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by WTF

None of the so called five conservative Justices are close to retiring. There might be two more SCJ that Obama appoints but they will be two of the most liberal. So it will be a net zero for liberals, where the GOP missed the boat was this was their chance to really pack the court with right wing loons. Mitt fuc'd it for ya.

WTF is correct, during Obama's 2nd term in office he will probably have an opportunity to fill vacancy's from one or two of the following three Justices, Ginsburg, Breyer and/or Kennedy. There is an outside chance that Scalia might be replaced during Obama's term but it is unlikely. If Scalia were to be one of those replaced while Obama is in office, it probably would significantly shift the court. The other three would not have nearly as much impact, unless Obama replaced all three (which is highly unlikely).

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Yes, really!

Why did you leave out Roberts? Because he voted "for" Obamacare?

And you think Thomas is more "conservative" than Roberts?

On topic, hopefully Mexico will get the same hospitality they give us with their court system, minus the mordida, of course.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

They are getting old, President Obama has four years for just one 'consevative' to die off, and you then have a 5-4 court leaning to the liberal bent.

Elections have consequences. All of the sorry ass "white guys" who sat on their dead asses and didn't vote this last election have no complaints. You have a President that will stack the court with more Kagans and Sotomayors', and the Country will change. For the better or worse will have to be delt with by our Children and Grandchildren.

As for the whole immigration thing, that train left the station long time ago. What we have is what we are stuck with. My best advice is adapt and learn to live with it.

All the old white guys voted the only problem is they needed some of the brown yellow and green guys to support their ideas.