Default
Mexico`s Outrageous Brief Against Arizona`s SB 1070
Default author
June 27, 2010, 03:04 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Mexico meddles in U.S. immigration policy, as I`ve reported for years, but they keep getting away with it. After all, our own government allows and even encourages them.

So it`s no surprise that the Mexican government has submitted a friend of the court brief supporting a suit against SB 1070 brought by a group of organizations including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the ACLU.

The Mexican government`s amicus curiae (friend of the court brief) can be perused online here.

The Mexican brief was filed on June 22nd in district court in Arizona.

It begins thusly:

The United Mexican States (�Mexico�) respectfully submits this amicus curiae brief to express its grave concerns over Arizona Senate Bill 1070, 49th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., Ch. 113 (Az. 2010), as amended (�SB 1070�), and to underscore the importance of declaring SB 1070 unconstitutional in its entirety.
The Mexican government, in other words, is telling us that Arizona`s law is entirely unconstitutional. Mexico is lecturing us on the meaning of our constitution. And,
Through the enactment of SB 1070, Arizona has taken action that decisively departs from the collective immigration policy of the United States for the purpose of imposing Arizona’s own independent and conflicting set of requirements. Such action directly and indirectly interferes with the bilateral economic, immigration and security policies of Mexico and the U.S. federal government. Thus, SB 1070 raises substantial challenges to the bilateral diplomatic relations between Mexico and the U.S.
But isn`t U.S. immigration policy a unilateral prerogative of the government and people of the United States? Not according to Mexico. According to the Mexican government, immigration from Mexico to the U.S. is a bilateral matter.
In addition, Mexico is gravely concerned that SB 1070 will lead to disparate treatment among Mexican nationals in the U.S., as well as disparate treatment as compared to U.S. citizens...
Of course Mexicans in the U.S. have a different status than U.S. citizens - they are not citizens of our country.

The first objection in the Argument section of the document :

I. SB 1070 Impedes International Relations; There Needs to Be One Cohesive,

Consistent and Controlling United States Voice

Under that heading, it says that
In order to conduct effective diplomatic relations with the U.S., countries such as Mexico need and depend on transparent, consistent and reliable bilateral negotiations. Amicus cannot effectively collaborate with the United States on a sovereign basis to address inherently international matters such as immigration, trade and security, if U.S. political subdivisions establish their own requirements that conflict not only with each other but also with the efforts, priorities and commitments of the U.S. federal government.
Once again, Mexico sees the immigration of Mexicans to the U.S. not as an internal U.S. legal matter, but an "international matter" subject to negotiation. Of course, immigration to Mexico is still under the authority of Mexico`s sovereignty.

Continuing under the heading of the Arizona law`s impeding international relations, there are 3 sub-arguments:

A. SB 1070 Will Severely Hinder Trade and Tourism Between Mexico and Arizona
Why? Because ....
....if SB 1070 takes effect, 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.
Hey, I just returned from visiting Mexico, where I was profiled. But I had my permit to be in the country. What`s the problem?

Another sub-objection:

B. SB 1070 Derails Efforts Towards Comprehensive Immigration Reform
With over eleven million nationals in the U.S., Mexico has a significant interest in U.S. comprehensive immigration reform. The United States is equally interested in Mexico’s involvement. In fact, one of the five immigration principles of the Obama administration is to collaborate with Mexico.
"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is a code word for amnesty. Mexico doesn`t want anything to derail amnesty.
C. SB 1070 Obstructs International Collaboration to Combat Drug-Trafficking Organizations and Drug-Related Violence
This is utterly ridiculous. There is no reason that SB 1070 should impede the U.S. and Mexico working together on fighting the drug war, or dealing with trade, water rights or any other such matter.

The second major objection to SB 1070 is that

II. Mexico Has a Legitimate Interest Protecting Its Citizens’ Rights Under the U.S. Constitution
The Mexican government respectfully submits that history demonstrates the state sanctioned actions, like SB 1070, violate the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution that guaranteeing freedom, liberty and equal protection of the law.
Look, we have our constitution, and Mexico has its constitution. If Mexico wants to protect its people, how about beginning right there in Mexico? Mexicans who enter the U.S. illegally are and should be subject to detention and deportation, with no apologies.

And, get a load of this sub-objection:

A. SB 1070’s Results in Racial Profiling Reminiscent of African-American Discrimination
It`s ironic they`d bring that up when today`s American Blacks are harmed by mass immigration and generally oppose it.

Then they get into this sort of vague, PC type of argument :

B. SB 1070’s Harmful Effects Lead to Dangerous Harms Spanning From Physical Violence to Promotion of Negative, Ill-Conceived Stereotypes
Conclusion?
For the foregoing reasons, amicus curiae respectfully requests that this Court

declare SB 1070 unconstitutional in its entirety.

If you`d like to communicate with the American lawyers who helped Mexico draw up this document, you can contact them here :
1. ALBERT M. FLORES LAW OFFICE , 337 N 4th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85003

Telephone: (602) 271-0070

2. DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019

Telephone: (212) 259-8000

Be polite, of course. But make your objections clear.