Mexico to have a 'voice' in US Immigration law

[SteamWake]

Yep you read that right...

Mexico gets its a say in one of the lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.

A federal judge on Thursday granted Mexico's request to be allowed to file a legal brief supporting the challenge. That means the judge will consider the brief Mexico submitted previously.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...migration-law/

[tater]

Insanity.

[conus00]

Unbelievable!

"But Mexico said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens' rights and that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries' work on combating drug trafficking and related violence."

Diplomatically put. Let's just lift the veil:
"racial profiling" - if you are in the USA, barely speaking language and you get pulled over diving a vehicle which is clearly in your name and you cannot produce valid US driver's license your immigration background check should be next logical step.

"hinder trade and tourism" - this one made me laugh. I'm afraid that 99.9% of Mexican citizens cannot AFFORD vacation in the USA, they are barely surviving in Mexico. So that leaves 0.1% who are actually visiting here.
Tourists should have no problem producing, upon request, their passports with valid B1/B2 visa.

"strain the countries' work on combating drug trafficking and related violence" - I'm at loss on this one, can somebody explain to me how is checking immigration background gonna HINDER this???

Overall, there is very simple solution, make a law (and strictly enforce it) that will require ANYBODY to carry either EAD card, I-551 card (green card) along with US issued driver's license in case of immigrants/workers or valid foreign passport with B1/B2 visa with departure stamp.
Plain and simple. (I'd have no problem carrying mine around)


"Arizona's policy, which President Felipe Calderon derided during a recent U.S. trip as "discriminatory," states police can't randomly stop people and demand papers..."

Why not?

"The law's provisions include a requirement that police enforcing another law ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally"

100% agree

[Platapus]

oh noes!

Mexico will be allowed to prepare a document!

Oh noes!

And a judge will read it?

Oh noes!

It's a brief. It is just a position paper that the judge will read. It does not mandate any action nor does it affect the court's duty. It is a piece of information, not an attack. Just an opinion on an issue. The judge can place any importance he or she wants or does not want on this brief.

What exactly is fox news trying to get people spun up about this time?

[Ducimus]

F*ck Mexico. Get your citizens out of my country.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Platapus

oh noes!

Mexico will be allowed to prepare a document!

Oh noes!

And a judge will read it?

Oh noes!

It's a brief. It is just a position paper that the judge will read. It does not mandate any action nor does it affect the court's duty. It is a piece of information, not an attack. Just an opinion on an issue. The judge can place any importance he or she wants or does not want on this brief.

What exactly is fox news trying to get people spun up about this time?

Oh noes.. the judge will consider the brief meaning he will consider it when adjucating.

[Ducimus]

For that you need an agreement with and the co-operation of Mexico so saying f*ck mexico is rather silly

Since when did we need mexico's approval to secure OUR borders to OUR country? Screw them.

1. No

On what possible grounds coukld you even consider that as correct?

2. Do not care...English is the primary language.

Tell that to a judge

3. I think the new law should allow for more.

So you are saying F*ck the US constitution.

4. Not really, saying F*uck relieves some stress. Beside, golly gee whizzy just does not get it anymore. We need no agreement with Mexico. Just a bigger fence.

How do you work a border without an agreement?

Let's send'em your way!

Well done, now you need new agreement with both Mexico and Ireland

Since when did we need mexico's approval to secure OUR borders to OUR country?

So you don't know what a border is then

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

On what possible grounds coukld you even consider that as correct?

Tell that to a judge

So you are saying F*ck the US constitution.

How do you work a border without an agreement?

Well done, now you need new agreement with both Mexico and Ireland


So you don't know what a border is then

1. Coffee grounds
2. I can't he speaks only Spanish
3. Yes, I'm jumping on the band wagon concerning the Constitution
4. With fully automatic weapons.
5. No we don't. A large fence will make them go around and straight to Ireland. Leaving the US out of it.

Have a great day.

[Ducimus]

So you don't know what a border is then

Actually, i do.




I've been there in fact.

Since it is by nature an interational issue is there any way Mexico should not have a voice?

"racial profiling" - if you are in the USA, barely speaking language

There is no requirement for american citizens to speak english so language doesn't avoid the constitutional problem over profiling.

Why not?

Because they can't, though thats irrelevant as the new law doesn't allow for it either.

F*ck Mexico. Get your citizens out of my country.

For that you need an agreement with and the co-operation of Mexico so saying f*ck mexico is rather silly

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Since it is by nature an interational issue is there any way Mexico should not have a voice?


There is no requirement for american citizens to speak english so language doesn't avoid the constitutional problem over profiling.


Because they can't, though thats irrelevant as the new law doesn't allow for it either.


For that you need an agreement with and the co-operation of Mexico so saying f*ck mexico is rather silly

1. No
2. Do not care...English is the primary language.
3. I think the new law should allow for more.
4. Not really, saying F*uck relieves some stress. Beside, golly gee whizzy just does not get it anymore. We need no agreement with Mexico. Just a bigger fence.

Let's send'em your way!

[gimpy117]

Let put ourselves in their shoes. If it was the reverse (and by the grace of god it's not) Our government would be obligated to make sure our citizens are being protected abroad.

[Onkel Neal]

Not if our citizens were entering a country illegally. Illegal.

[Sailor Steve]

It's okay Neal. A lot of folks don't remember the Iran hostage crisis. Iranians started protesting against the US...here in the US. The government offered to give them all a free ride home, and Liberals compared it to the Japanese-American interment in WW2. It's not like we want to shoot all the illegals. Well, most of us don't anyway.