Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

The State of Arizona is not yet 100 years old.

(Jul. 1, 2010) On June 22, Mexico filed a brief in support of overturning the State of Arizona’s new immigration law scheduled to take effect on July 29.  In the filing, the Mexican government stated that it “is concerned for the civil rights of its citizens in Arizona.”

The brief expresses the Mexican government’s support of a lawsuit filed by several groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and the National Immigration Law Center.  The NILC’s statement on SB 1070 can be found here.

The ACLU calls the new Arizona law the “Racial Profiling Bill” and claims that it “invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona.”

More information on the ACLU’s lawsuit against the State of Arizona can be found here.

The Sonoran News has reported that Mexico’s brief is an “amicus curiae” filing which contends that Mexico “wants to assure that its citizens, present in the United States, are ‘accorded the human and civil rights granted under the U.S. Constitution; having therefore a substantial and compelling interest in protecting its citizens and ensuring that their ethnicity is not used as a basis for state-sanctioned acts of discrimination, including the inequitable application of civil and criminal laws and state’s law enforcement powers.’”  The brief also admits that there are “over 11 million nationals in the United States” but does not use the term “illegally” when referring to such individuals.

Arizona Governor Janice Brewer has asked the court to limit “amici curiae” filings, contending that “more than ten amici curiae have filed motions in this case – with new motions for leave to file amicus briefs coming in daily.”  She also requested that briefs in support of or against the new law be excluded.

Governor Brewer’s web page has posted a “Common Myths and Facts” sheet on SB1070 which states that authorities must first conduct a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” before utilizing the “secondary enforcement” provision of the new law.  The summary also refutes the claim that the law is unconstitutional “because it intrudes on the federal government’s power to enforce immigration laws,” stating that “It is settled case law that states and local police may enforce criminal provisions of federal immigration law.”

Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, now Homeland Security Secretary, had written to Michael Chertoff and Donald Rumsfeld requesting “additional Federal attention at the border” and commending Chertoff for ICE personnel changes he had made in Maricopa County.  That letter was signed by both Napolitano and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is known for his tough stance against illegal immigration and has arrested illegals found working in Maricopa County’s businesses and elsewhere.

Today Obama said he “was ready to pursue” an immigration bill but admitted that “Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes.”  He has criticized SB1070 from its inception, calling it “misguided,” and plans to file a lawsuit against Arizona soon.

Those wishing to contribute to Arizona’s border security initiative may do so here.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. BOYCOTT MEXICO in response to the friend-of-court brief filed against Arizona!

    The loss of American tourists $$$ flowing heavily into their economy will certainly slap them down.
    How utterly stupid to “bite the hand that feeds you”!

  2. Mexico pretends to be a poverty-ridden country, yet for years their invaders have sent money home. Last year it was in the neighborhood of $21 Billion in remittances. Then, through the generosity of our own government, we continue to toss money into that vile country. With the corrupt government, drug cartels and the elite (all one and the same) it’s not so poor after all. I think they rank #14 in the wealthiest country category. We, on the other hand, are broke. Why must we continue to support Mexico or anyone else for that matter? We are a nation of givers, but when the money runs out, who gives to us? We are involved in an unwinable war. We need to bring our military home and line them up on our own border to stop the invasion, then use every means to cause self-deportation of illegal aliens. Let’s take care of us for a change. The world will survive and maybe, just maybe, they will realize they need to care for their own and quit looking at the US as a bunch of weaklings and the world’s Santa Claus.

  3. So That You Spoiled US Citizens Can Understand What Gov Jan Brewer Is Up Against, Our Cub-Scout Pres Obama Pays Billions Of Dollars To Mexico For There Protecting Our Border, Half For The Mexican Army And Navy And Half For The President Of Mexico, Yikees, Corruption Runs Mexico, Kinda Like Obama, Pelosi & Reid Run The US Government Corruption, Yikees, And Poor Arizona And Gov Jan Brewer Can Not Even Get A Phone Call From The Three Stooges Obama Inc, So The Manchurian Paperless Pres Obama Sends Help In The Form Of Janet N. Who Arizona Sent To Wash D.C. As A Token Of A Worthless Gov Employee Gone Bad, Yikeess. So Pres Barack Abdallah Husein Obama Will You Man-Up And Help Gov Jan Brewer The Best Little Governor In The USA, She Needs Armed Troops On Her Border While The US Troops Build Her Fences, Do Not Worry About The Muslim Countrys Take Care Of Our Borders.

  4. Obama has sided with a foreign power against the state of Arizona. The Mexican president has said if they are illegal in Mexico, “we send them back.” It’s all a one-way street to them.

  5. Mexico has absolutely NADA, NO, ZERO, ZILCH, ZIP right whatsoever to meddle in Arizona’s, any other State’s, or the USA’s business. PERIOD!

  6. Thanks, HighlanderJuan.

    I get what you’re saying but still, it seems to me that, rather than taking one of the 50 states to court, a nation would file suit against another nation in international court. In other words, it seems that if Mexico (or New Zealand or any other nation) has a legal grievance due to the actions of law enforcement in Arizona (or South Dakota or any other state), then that nation would take the United States to court.

    Further, it seems to me that if international law doesn’t dictate that a state of the US can’t be taken to international court – that is, if Mexico or some nation were to manage to file suit against a state in international court – the Feds would jump in to say, “No way, Jose. You got a bone to pick with Arizona (or Alabama), you take it up with us.”

  7. Anyone need any more proof that America’s enemies are many, and that our own federal government sides with our enemies and not with our people and not with our own rule of law?

    As for Mexico, it’s a nice place if you like 18th century living conditions, the Spanish language, a corrupt government, and intolerance of foreigners. Mexico needs to clean its own house before it attacks its neighbors about their internal laws. I don’t acknowledge or accept Mexico’s intrusion into our American affairs. In military terms, Mexico is drawing first blood.

  8. The Mexican government needs to mind its own business. If they are so concerned with the safety of “their citizens” in Arizona, then they need to make arrangements to see to their safety once they return to Mexico. Arizona has every right, nay, obligation, to see that the laws of the USA are adhered to, and unfortunately, they appear to be standing on their own, minus the cooperation of the American government to ensure the rights of true, legal residents.

    I challenge every person in the US to stand up and boycott Mexico. Why do we continue to allow these people to come here illegally, take jobs that pay them under the table, and then send their $$ back to Mexico? It doesn’t make any sense at all.

    1. Andyross, you answered your own question with these little symbols: $$. For too many people (and businesses, too), $$ is god. They’d risk their own grandmothers for $$. I’m not saying all people and all businesses worship $$. Unfortunately, however, some do.

  9. Federalist 24, excerpt ” If we should not be willing to be exposed, in a naked and defenseless condition, to their insults and encroachments, we should find it expedient to increase our frontier garrisons in some ratio to the force by which our Western settlements might be annoyed. There are, and will be, particular posts, the possession of which will include the command of large districts of territory, and facilitate future invasions of the remainder. It may be added that some of those posts will be keys to the trade with the Indian nations. Can any man think it would be wise to leave such posts in a situation to be at any instant seized by one or the other of two neighboring and formidable powers? To act this part would be to desert all the usual maxims of prudence and policy.”

    Well it can be said that Obama has deserted all the usual maxims of prudence and policy, left us defenseless and naked to insults and encroachments by not only Mexican cartels but now, obviously the Mexican government which has a hand in the insults and encroachments being continued. They openly challenge treaties by suing AZ which the federal govt. is responsible to equally protect. Obama admits to a political scheme by leaving the people of AZ in peril. That is a treachery only a tyrnant would pursue.

    1. What if the Mexican government decides to move in force to protect it citizens? Obama will turn and look the other way. Arizona should call up a militia and recall its national guard to train a reasonable force to protect its sovereignty.

  10. If ethnicity = innocence then there can be no crime. That’s wonderful logic. I should take down my dog fence so my animals can roam free. Why not, they are just as entitled to your property and have never harmed anyone. Never mind they have huge teeth and a natural tendency to bite those who kick or harm them. I wonder if they are racist bigots? Funny thing is that all those who I allow into their home are well loved. I do have a few who are excluded because they are unable to be trusted and even the dogs know it. I guess I’d make a better prez than the hustler in chief. At least I know what property rights and respect are.

  11. Since when are the Feds supposed to take seriously lawsuits filed against individual states by other countries? I don’t think it’s even legal for Mexico to file suit against Arizona (or for any country to file suit against any individual state…or even against numerous states, for that matter). Apuzzo or any attorneys reading here: am I right?

    1. I think under international law the aggrieved state (Mexico) would have to show pending or actual damage to their citizens or their country in international court. International law does not operate as American law and we have to be careful in assuming it does.

      Mexico has merely filed a friend-of-court brief as part of the lawsuit filed against Arizona by a coalition of civil rights and service organizations. That may explain why Mexico has apparently jumped on board an existing U.S. lawsuit, rather than filed an international lawsuit – they have no real claim.

      It might be really interesting to take this issue to the international court and learn from their perspective whether a country and a sovereign state has a right to defend its own borders.