Should the Courts allow this? Why would a Foreign government be allowed to sue any US State?
Have we already lost State rights?
What the H... are we doing, even entertaining a idea like this for?
The courts should not allow it. Will they? Only time will tell. I believe if they do then the other states will step up behind Arizona and support them. But we will just have to wait and see. The whole idea of the Federal govt. suing Arizona is nuts anyway.
Don't we have a few issues about how they handle illegal things in their country...as well...like murder, kidnapping, drug trafficing, and discharging firearms in unsafe manner as to strike a government building in El Paso...? Me thinks they protest too much!
We are bastardizing the American Dream, we are bastardizing the accepted and general and long term American Way, and this has been happening for several years now, and coming to fruition in the past few years in a very Michael Moorish Sicko way. God Bless America.....
Interesting question.I doubt the courts would allow it. I don't think we've lost states rights, but I live in AZ and and from what I hear, see and live I do believe there is a need for the federal gov't to get involved, the issue doesn't just affect the border of AZ. No way should a foriegn gov't be able to any U.S. state unless that state in some way violates international agreements with said country.
So, the US Justice department has decided to give standing to a foreign country in a lawsuit to stop that state from enforcing the laws of the US, because the government doesn't like the laws and refuses to enforce them on its own?
I think this is the first time, the federal government has betrayed a state to a foreign country.
I agree, and they are considering it! thats whats amazing. The news last week cnbc, said the Obama administration has taken the request under consideration????
WTF...are we thinking here.
now, this past few days, they have posted a statement that they are no longer considering it. (US Attorney Gen.'s office released the statement. like a correction to the story!)
guess they figured they better not try that one!
"WTF...are we thinking here."
Most of us are thinking and we think the Justice department is now an arm of the U.N..
Some liberal Court may allow Mexico to get involved, they have allowed a lot of strange things.
But when it gets to a court with a majority of competent Judges it will be slapped around as it should.
This Justice department will soon have its hands full with internal investigations and resignations of its, er, leader.
This is all just talk, we have already lost the border wars , why? Because we pledge allegience to corporate America. Cheap labor dictates states rights , especially in the labor market. In Vermont where I live it's the poor Dairy farmers . Subsidized by what? legalized illegals. Why , a difference in about 5 dollars an hour of labor costs. Migrant crop pickers , commercial fishermen, every landscaping company in America , and all the house maids in Washington DC....Do you really think either party will change anything? Not as long as corporations have constitutional rights . I think Az. has already done something the rest of the country should have strength enough to do.
I'd have thought that Mexico ought to be more bothered about the push factors causing all these Mexicans to want to migrate in the first place.
The Mexican government sees the United States as a bona fide official subsidy of their population. A majority of the Mexicans who come to the U.S. illegally send money back home to family, so the money they pull out of the U.S. economy is plowed back into the Mexican economy. The Mexican government now relies on that infusion and dares to PROTEST and SUE for it when a state does everything in its power to regain control over illegal immigration within its own borders. Such outrageous audacity and shocking, dishonorable sense of entitlement.
Further, the federal government has NO constitutional right to allow a foreign government standing to sue a state of this union.
I have yet to see anybody source an authority for this story - though conservatives are piling on. I know all this rage is fun, but maybe a few facts??? Or would that spoil the fun - sorry.
I am happy to provide the authority you requested:
The New American.com
"Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona; Illegals Sue Rancher for Civil Rights Violations"
Written by Joe Wolverton, II
Monday, 28 June 2010 09:00
Also, the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thus, it is NOT unconstitutional for a state to enforce federal law. The immigration laws currently in place are sufficient, IF they are enforced, either by the federal government and / or the state governments and / or the people.
"On Tuesday, June 22, Mexico filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of one of five lawsuits currently pending in federal court challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070."
So the OP is deceptive false and misleading. Mexico has NOT joined the suit as a plaintiff, only rendered their opinion in writing, protesting what they view as potential violations of the rights of Mexican citizens legally in the US.
I wish I had a dollar for every false, misleading & deceptive wingnut post on HP.
It says what I said - foreign countries have joined Mexico who filed 'friend of the court' brief. That's an opinion which they want the court to consider and it is NOT a request to be added to the suit as a plaintiff. If these terms are confusing, look them up. But you wingnuts are full of prune juice claiming that a foreign country is suing Arizona.
Your splitting hairs. When a brief is accepted by the court, it will be used in the court's ruling. This is a tactic often used by activist organizations. No doubt this is originating not by the countries mentioned, but rather some organization such as the ACLU. Since Mexico and other Latin American countries are NOT a party to the litigation they are submitting a brief. The reasoning and legal standing is that the decision can affect them. Affect them how?
In summary, their standing is based that they, a foriegn entity, benefit from illegal immigration. Great argument.
I said nothing to imply or support the idea that Mexico had status to sue in any American court. I sited the sources I did precisely because they lay out Mexico's position regarding the Arizona Law not, as you infer, that Mexico has any status beyond amicus curiae.
By the way an amicus brief does imply that the party has a strong interest in the legal matter before a court and that the court recognizes that interest. Though not a party to the case at hand amicus is a status conferred by the court and not open to just any party. The party acting as amicus must have some interest in the case and that interest must be accepted by the court as germain.
The government of Mexico has made its opposition to the Arizona law well known. Its amicus position is in support of the Justice Department's case so Mexico is involved in the case, not as paintiff, but as amicus in support of the plaintiff. Isn't that joining the suit against Arizona?
As to wingnut, since you are an avowed liberal I know that you can't fully understand what my position or opinion is. So contradict, castigate, spew as much as you wish it doesn't matter at all to me.
The good members of Hubpages who protest this suit against Arizona represent the vast majority of Americans who believe that they are entitled to a government that enforces, not neglects, its laws. And they also represent the sentiment of Americans who are outraged that the federal government has deemed it the place of the federal government to sue a state that is doing everything in its power to enforce the law of the land, in order to protect its citizens.
As to the distinction of party to the suit v. friend of the court, it really does not signify. NO court should allow the Mexican government standing in either capacity to attack the state of Arizona.
This issue before the court : 1) is at its root an unprecedented challenge by the federal challenge of the constitutional right of a state to enforce the law of the land; and 2) which concerns an internal security matter that Arizona has sought to address within its own borders
It is NOT a treaty matter, nor does it affect any valid direct LEGAL interests of Mexico, only those that are ILLEGAL, which Mexico is unabashedly promoting in this case in the the most thinly veiled fashion. Therefore, based on every tenet of law and order, the Mexican government has no right to a place at the table. And the table should rightly be dismantled by the first court that hears this case.
You'd think, but the problem, and what most people don't realize, is a lot of illegal aliens come here to work, sure... but not necessarily to live. They make the money here but don't spend much of it. At some point they're either caught and deported or voluntarily return to Mexico where they live like kings until the money is gone and it's time to head north again. All the while pumping mega bucks into the Mexican economy.
Not trying to sound like a racist, living 10 miles from the border as the crow flies, I actually have a few really good LEGAL Mexican friends, but it annoys the crap out me. They come here for a "better" life and to support their family, which I can understand, but the gratitude they show the U.S. for that better life is to trash the land as they cross it, refuse make the slightest effort to assimilate or learn the language, and then take all that money back to dump into the Mexican economy.
But I'M the a$$hole because I don't care for feeling like I now have to learn a new language at 31 just to survive in my own country?
This more than anything show the weakness of the Obama administration. That they would allow foreign governments to attack a state in the courts is just disgusting. The Obama government opened the door on this by picking on Arizona while ignoring their own obligation of protecting our borders. Sickening.
U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2 - the Federal Judiciary has jurisdiction over legal matters between a state and a foreign government. Therefore the court decides if Mexico can have legal standing.
Good point. Besides, what would be their argument? That the US is preventing Mexico from using the US as it's welfare system?
WOW emphatic font much? As I mentioned in an earlier post - amicus curiae is legal status in a court. Foreign governments have standing it the courts determine that they have standing. That is part of jurisdiction.
It was back in June that Mexico made their desire to join the yet unfiled lawsuit at that time.
In November 2010
An interesting note by the Judge
Court watchers are saying that the response by 9th circuit Federal Judge John T. Noonan to the DoJ brief on the suit against the AZ immigration law might have doomed it before the case has been heard:
Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department's argument: that the Arizona statute is "preempted" by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.
"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. "We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That's not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don't have an argument."
"With respect, I do believe we have an argument," said Kneedler, who asserts that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to "interrogation and police surveillance
what a mess. i thank congress for this. we gotta start fixing up america.
by ptosis4 years ago
It has been said that "Immigration is a federal issue and we can't have 50 states making 50 laws." but we have 50 different rules for voting for the president which is also a federal issue.I'm not asking if...
by Credence23 years ago
According to this article:http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/brea … =223353661So where is the age of majority? Is it 18 or 21? This issue has always irritated me since I was that age. This second class...
by TheSituation6 years ago
What do you all think about this one? Seems like some good fodder for my fellow hubbers.
by andrew savage3 years ago
Should it be legal for the federal government to purchase goods produced outside of the United States? What are the reprecussions of the government purchasing goods from outside of the United States?
by My Esoteric5 months ago
In reading Federalist Paper # 36 on Taxation, I found the jewel that speaks to one of the main differences between today's Republicans and Democrats"...; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy...
by My Esoteric23 months ago
... are trying to encourage those who fall in the Medicaid gap they created to move out of their State? Hospitals in those States are reporting increased unpaid (meaning you paid) emergency room visits from this...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.