Mexico to have a 'voice' in US Immigration law

[Zachstar]

Why when I see a topic like this I look and see the op is steamwake?

Geezus people it is a document on Mexico's position in the matter. Of course those on the right foaming at the mouth to blame their issues on illegal immigrants are going to go ape over it. As for subsim I say in my opinion this is another silly topic.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Want to know how bad illegal immigration is? Aside from the 50 some odd Mexicans standing outside of EVERY Home depot in California?

When half the crap solicitors leave on your car window or front door is in freaking Spanish. Not that i care for what they're peddling anyway, but i think it seriously says something half the business or calling cards you encounter aren't even in English anymore.

I'm left wondering if people that are living in states that don't share a border with Mexico truly understand how out of control illegal immigration is. I've been to other states that don't share said border, and comparitively, you only see 10% of the BS you do here. So i imagine things may seem hunky dory when it's not.

Oh dear god some paper on the windshield in spanish = DOOM!!!

Seriously is that your best example?

[krashkart]

What is in the legalese of Mexico's tit-for-tat response to Arizona's law that is so infuriating? I'm not buying this idea I'm getting that America is the only country that should have rights.

What is in the legalese of Mexico's tit-for-tat response to Arizona's law that is so infuriating?

There is no tit for tat yet, though currently Arizona has an announced policy which means it is basicly going to be stuck with paying the upkeep for any illegals it catches for the rest of their natural lives.
Thats the problem with issues like illegal immigration, emotions take over and you get crazy responses which are devoid of thought.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Why when I see a topic like this I look and see the op is steamwake?

Geezus people it is a document on Mexico's position in the matter. Of course those on the right foaming at the mouth to blame their issues on illegal immigrants are going to go ape over it. As for subsim I say in my opinion this is another silly topic.

Because I like to highlight idiocy within our goverment no one said you had to participate. If you feel the topic is silly just move on.

Because I like to highlight idiocy within our goverment no one said you had to participate.

So you do so be putting out a story about something that has always happened and will always happen and seem to think its a new thing???????

If you feel the topic is silly just move on

It is the silliness of your topic that makes it worth it.
It's the fact that you wrote about the shock of Mexico going to be having a "voice" on an issue when it always has had and always will have.

[tater]

Mexico didn't always have a say. Mexico only has a say if the judge accepts their brief. The judge could also have said that he didn't care what Mexico's opinion was, they have no particular right to have a voice in the lawsuit at all, only a right to submit a brief—not that it would be heard.

[tater]

More goodness from Andy McCarthy:

United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island?
Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”

If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.

[iambecomelife]

Originally Posted by tater

Mexico didn't always have a say. Mexico only has a say if the judge accepts their brief. The judge could also have said that he didn't care what Mexico's opinion was, they have no particular right to have a voice in the lawsuit at all, only a right to submit a brief—not that it would be heard.

Good point - and a good rebuttal to the people posting nonsense about "right wingers going ape" to try and obscure the issue.

In certain cases it could be a violation of Professional Responsibility to waste the court's time with irrelevant documents (although i don't think this would not apply if it's Mexican counsel preparing the brief). Either way this is very bad form on Mexico's part.

Also, Just because you CAN use a litigation tactic doesn't mean you should. Judges are free to use their discretion to punish tactics that, are professionally inappropriate, even if they do not technically violate State or Federal Procedure.

Not that the pro-illegals care anyway - Mexico's position is that it should be able to abet lawbreaking with no consequences.