Posted on 10/14/2010 8:43:35 AM PDT by SandRat
PHOENIX — Saying its officials have an ulterior motive, Gov. Jan Brewer asked a federal appeals court to ignore the pleas of the Mexican government to keep the state’s immigration law from being enforced.
In legal papers filed Wednesday, Brewer said through her attorney that Mexico seeks a voice in the legal dispute over Senate Bill 1070 based on its contention that keeping Arizona out of the immigration business protects “consistent sovereign-to-sovereign relations” between itself and the United States. The legal brief filed by Mexico also says the country has an interest in protecting the estimated 11 million of its citizens in this country.
But Brewer told the judges that is a smokescreen.
“This court should consider Mexico’s arguments in light of its true interest in this dispute, namely its desire for lax enforcement of United States immigration laws and ultimate amnesty for all of the Mexican nationals who are unlawfully present in the United States,” attorney John Bouma wrote for the governor. She said the Mexican government is couching that instead in the guise of “comprehensive immigration reform.”
In fact, Brewer told Capitol Media Services that, if she had her way, there wouldn’t be any brief for her to fight.
“Mexico and Latin America, I don’t believe they belong in our courts,” she said. “What they’re trying to do is make sure our border is not secure.”
Brewer also poked fun at the Mexican government saying it was filing a “friend of the court” brief.
“They’re a friend of the president,” the governor said, saying she believes it is Obama who is giving Mexico the go-ahead to try to intercede in “an Arizona issue.”
“He gave (Mexican President Felipe) Calderón the forum of the Congress,” Brewer said of Obama.
The case is technically between the U.S. Department of Justice, which opposes key provisions of SB 1070, and the state.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton in July agreed with the Obama administration’s arguments that these sections of the state statute appear to be preempted by federal law and enjoined their enforcement. The hearing set for Nov. 1 in San Francisco is on Brewer’s appeal of that injunction.
Mexico, along with other interested parties on both side of the issue, have filed “friend of the court” briefs with their own perspectives.
Brewer said much of what Mexico is arguing involves the general importance of positive international relations as well as human and civil rights. And the governor said she does not dispute those principles.
“However, Mexico does not explain how either of these two issues are relevant to the issues before the court,” the governor’s legal filing said.
Specifically, Brewer wants to overturn Bolton’s ruling against a section which requires police who have stopped people for any reason to check their immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally. Other sections Bolton enjoined include forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person’s immigration status is determined, making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry documentation and creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident.
“Instead, Mexico spends much of its brief engaging in unfounded speculation about the impact of SB 1070,” Brewer said.
“Without any basis on the record, Mexico asserts that SB 1070 ‘will inevitably lead to harassment of Mexicans legally present in the U.S. and appearance-based arrests, giving Mexico justified cause for concern,’ “ the governor said. She said that racial profiling is not an issue in this appeal, only the question of federal preemption.
As proof of Mexico’s true interest, Brewer and Bouma cite a declaration of Otto Reich, a former ambassador under the Reagan administration and an assistant secretary of state in the administration of George W. Bush.
He said many foreign countries “would prefer to see the U.S. border remain as open as possible to allow the exportation of surplus labor.” And Reich, in his declaration, said Latin American countries “favor amnesty so that those unlawfully present can continue to send money to their friends and family back home.”
Border SB1070 PING
“The legal brief filed by Mexico also says the country has an interest in protecting the estimated 11 million of its citizens in this country.”
Let’s make that easier for them and send all 11 million back to Mexico where they will be assured of “protection”.
Ping!
Two things:
1. Mexico’s southern border atrocities need to be addressed before they have any say here.
2. Mexico needs to be held accountable for expenses and deaths caused by its citizens here illegally before they have any say here.
I agree. They should all be returned immediately.
““Mexico and Latin America, I don’t believe they belong in our courts,” she said. “What they’re trying to do is make sure our border is not secure.””
Exactly!
Thanks for the ping.
We're independent...and sovereign.
It's none of their business and they have no standing. EVER.
I don't think they should. I was pointing out obvious (to you and I and any other conservative thinker) hypocrisies and attempting to word them in a way that liberals could understand.
Point taken
BUMP
&
a Thank you
“Why do you think Mexico - or any other country for that matter - should ever have a say in our laws, or involve themselves in court disputes over their laws?!
“
They are trying to invade us and milk the fruits of our economy. They don’t want anything getting in the way of that invasion.
“
We’re independent...and sovereign.”
I find it ironic as in the United States we function by popular Not “national” sovereignty. Mexico’s and the Federal governments argument is reminiscent of imperial “divine Right of Kings”.
It should also be mentioned that technically from a literal reading of the Constitution congresses immigration power comes form the power to establish a uniform rule of immigration. A rule which the States are simply taking it upon themselves to enforce, cause the Federal executive can’t or won’t.
To be fair the Federal Government was never designed to enforce domestic rules, and was always depended upon the States to enforce their constitutionally relevant rules domestically.
This is actually a key design future of our Federal Constitutional system. You see by relying upon the separate state governments for domestic enforcement the same governments become an elected, impartial, 3rd party(the State Government) to enforce the limits of the Federal Constitution on the same Federal Government. (At least as it apply to protecting the rights of the people domestically form the unauthorized acts of the same Federal Government).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.