Skip to comments.Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona; Illegals Sue Rancher for Civil Rights Violations
Posted on 06/28/2010 8:06:31 AM PDT by IbJensen
The Obama administration announced recently that it intends to sue Arizona in order to temporarily block implementation of SB 1070 until Congress passes its own version of comprehensive immigration reform.
The state law in question was passed in order to discourage illegal immigration into the Grand Canyon State and to strictly enforce existing federal law regarding the immigration status of millions currently present in the United States.
The zeal demonstrated by the Obama White House in taking all available means (lawful and otherwise) to prevent Arizona from asserting its constitutionally-protected right to be protected from invasion is matched only by its stupefying reluctance to secure the southern border and protecting the lives, land, and fortunes of legal residents of Arizona.
The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) accuses the President of "systematically dismantling immigration enforcement while laying the groundwork for massive amnesty."
The citizens of Arizona expressed their sentiment through the actions of their duly elected representatives, precisely in the manner anticipated by the system of dual sovereignty established by our Founding Fathers in the framing of our Constitution. The states are not subordinates of the national government. Each of the 50 sister states is a separate sovereignty with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities thereof.
A majority of Arizonans (and their fellow Americans) overwhelmingly support SB 1070. Since the bill was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, nearly a dozen states have proposed similar statutes to deal with the problem of illegal immigrants that seems to plague every state, border or inland.
If the Obama administration is successful in its quest to prevent the lawfully enacted will of the citizens of Arizona to take effect on July 29 as presently scheduled, then the states will be rendered powerless to resist the will of the national government whenever it is contrary to the will of the state government. The states will be reduced to mere suzerainties of the plutocrats on the Potomac and the splintered remains of their sovereignty will be consumed by a fire kindled with the shreds of the 10th Amendment.
Apart from the designed dismantling of federalism and the right of states to govern themselves, there is a more immediate threat from the administration's policy of preventing the enforcement of immigration laws.
According to reports published worldwide, drug lords and criminal cartels are increasing in power to a level that threatens the stability of the Mexican government in Mexico City. These criminal operations will undoubtedly proliferate as the leaders thereof will interpret the federal lassitude as tacit permission to perpetuate the extension of their evil dominion over extraordinarily large swaths of land in Arizona. There are reportedly sections of southern Arizona that have been abandoned by legal residents for fear that the crime wave will wash away all that they have worked so hard to build.
A representative of FAIR expressed a similar point of view, "In deciding to join the effort to block SB 1070 from taking effect, the Obama administration is once again putting its own political agenda ahead of its responsibilities to protect the nation and the interests of people who live along the border."
That is precisely the state of affairs. Not only have decades of presidential administrations (from both major parties) and congressional co-conspirators (from both major parties) sat idly by and suborned the invasion of the invasion of the border states, but when one of those states dares enact laws to protect itself and make up for the federal disregard, that state is threatened with legal action aimed at preventing those laws from taking effect.
There is a third member of the Triumvirate working in league to propel the speed of the illegal invasion of Arizona the so-called "republic" of Mexico.
On Tuesday, June 22, Mexico filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of one of five lawsuits currently pending in federal court challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070.
The brief pleads with the court to declare the law unconstitutional and asserts that the country has material legal standing as its own interests and rights are at stake if the law is permitted to go into effect as scheduled.
Specifically, the Mexican lawyers insist that the interest in having "consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one state." Furthermore, the brief warns that if the law is put into practice, then the rights of Mexican citizens will be violated as a result of "racial profiling" that will accompany the enforcement of the law.
Curiously, the law specifically forbids racial profiling. The law passed by the Arizona state legislature and supported by a vast majority of Americans requires police to ascertain the immigration status of anyone reasonably suspected of being in the country illegally, provided that person is already being detained for some other lawful purpose.
The law prohibits the solicitation of day labor along the streets of Arizona and it makes being illegally present in Arizona a misdemeanor.
All of these elements are already part of the panoply of federal statutes enacted to punish unlawful entry into the United States. Governor Brewer and Arizona state legislature expressly referred to the federal government's failure to enforce the law as a reason for the necessity of the enactment of SB 1070.
Ironically, the immigration law considered so noxious by the government of Mexico is far fairer and less strident than similar statutes in place in their own country. Until about two years ago, being illegally present in Mexico was a crime punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, followed by immediate deportment.
The current state of the law in Mexico makes illegal immigration a civil offense; however, it does mandate that Mexican law-enforcement officers demand proof of immigration status from everyone suspected of being a foreigner. As a matter of fact, foreigners have no legal standing or right to due process if detained by Mexican authorities.
Its not just conservative proponents of Arizona's new immigration law that decry the hypocrisy of the Mexican government in joining a suit against a law that is much less draconian than there own. Amnesty International has accused Mexican officials of routinely raping, kidnapping, and abusing immigrants coming across its southern border with Belize and Guatemala. In fact, so rampant was the misdealing, that immigrants would include bribes for Mexican officials as part of the cost of funding their journey across the border.
It now falls to a United States District judge to decide whether or not the brief filed by Mexico (and other similar briefs) will be accepted and made part of the underlying suit.
Governor Brewer issued a statement saying she was "very disappointed" by Mexico's involvement in the lawsuit. She avers that the bill she signed into law is "both reasonable and constitutional."
Brewer took the opportunity to reiterate that SB 1070 would be unnecessary if the federal government had performed its duty and sealed the porous border through which millions of immigrants have illegally entered the United States like water through a sieve.
In a related story, on June 22, a landowner in Arizona who has waged a 10-year campaign to stanch the flood of illegal immigrants across his property has been sued by 16 Mexicans accusing the rancher of violating their civil rights when he stopped them and detained them at gunpoint when they attempted to cross his land after making it over the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett first began detaining illegals after several of them, according to Barnett, stole his property, killed livestock, and attempted to break into his home.
Barnett insists that he has never injured any of the illegals he has caught and that he always calls Border Patrol and turns over the trespassers to the federal authorities.
According to reports in the Washington Times, the plaintiffs are represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). By cross-referencing this information with the data published at americanpatrol.com, MALDEF is supported by corporate contributions from The Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Soros Foundation.
when are the states and private businesses like hospitals going to turn around and sue the OPEC producing mexican govt for MEDCAID MEDICARE and otther expenses incurred to support MEXICAN citizens?
This situation will not reverse itself until D.C. is cleaned out.
I have no doubt the Arizona rancher will lose this lawsuit and likely his ranch as well as this has already happened once in the recent past.
Lawsuits can go two ways. AZ should sue Mexico for ENCOURAGING its citizens to sneak into the US. Remember the “comic book” they produced some years back showing the illegals how to sneak into the US and avoid immigration??
It appears that the POTUS is a rank racist. If you are white, you have no right!
Dead lawyers can’t sue
One Slice at a Time on Amnesty?
Center for immigration studies | June 10, 2010 | Mark Krikorian
FR Posted by AuntB
As the name suggests, supporters of comprehensive immigration reform have long resisted the mere suggestion that they should try a piecemeal approach and pursue smaller, less politically toxic amnesties. About a year ago, I was on a panel with Frank Sharry of Americas Voice, one of the chief pro-amnesty activists, and Esther Olavarria, the policy director for DHS who used to be Kennedys immigration person. In the flush of a new leftist, pro-amnesty administration, both were categorical that under no circumstances would there be a piecemeal approach to amnesty, insisting that everything would be folded into a comprehensive bill.
What a difference a year makes. Now, panicked that theyre going to get nothing at all, the pro-amnesty crowd is considering trying to move smaller, targeted amnesties, such as the Dream Act (for adults brought here illegally as children) and AgJobs (an amnesty and indentured-labor program for farmworkers). The first crack came late last year when the new head of MALDEF called for a piecemeal approach, mentioning not only the Dream Act and AgJobs but also spousal immigration rights for homosexuals and banning states from passing immigration-enforcement measures. A couple weeks ago, on another panel I was on, Sharry expressed openness to the piecemeal approach, and stories in The Hill and this Tucson paper suggest that support is growing among the amnesty folks (LULAC, for instance, is now in the piecemeal camp).
And the activists focused specifically on the Dream Act (usually illegal-alien college students whod benefit from it) have been getting increasingly strident in their criticisms of the D.C.-based comprehensive crowd. This is from one of their sites: From 2007, even before the CIR bill was introduced campaign officially kicked off, Dream youth were told to hold off on the DREAM Act. We were told, point blank, that if we advocated for the DREAM Act we would be killing a larger reform package. That by merely sharing our stories, we would be activating the anti-immigrant sentiment in the country and doing harm to everyone, including our parents.
We were shamed, called selfish, and ridiculed at every turn. But through it all we managed to pull through with an an amazing movement to boot. Where we were denied a seat at a table, we created our own table and, as youth, we reclaimed our own movement. We are no longer dependent on privileged, usually white, out-of-touch organizers to do our bidding or for that matter even speak for us. What does it tell you about yourmovement when the speakers dont even represent the issue at hand?! We can speak for ourselves.
(I especially like the part about privileged, usually white, out-of-touch organizers racial grievance even within the pro-amnesty movement!) The problem for the piecemeal crowd is that it might be too late even for small-ish immigration bills. If theyd moved forward with them in 2007, they might well have gotten them passed. If theyd moved forward with smaller bills last year, they might have gotten somewhere. But this fall, in a panic at the lack of progress on amnesty, to try to ram through some small amnesties as a way of placating their left wing? I dont see how that works.
The only piecemeal thing that might have a chance would be a modified version of the Dream Act that added two important elements: First, to ensure future kids wont find themselves in such a situation, mandate E-Verify for all new hires; and second, to ensure that no adult responsible for putting these kids in such a predicament could ever benefit, abolish all the family immigration categories except the one for spouses and minor children of citizens. Even I could vote for a bill like that.
Reconquista shock troops at Phoenix Capital protest, May 29, 2010.
Why didn't Calderon whine about that when he addressed Congress?
Guess he knew he would not get a standing ovation (/snix).
“I have no doubt the Arizona rancher will lose this lawsuit and likely his ranch as well as this has already happened once in the recent past.”
Absolutely correct (#2 REALLY pisses me off).
Just wondering (/snix): where do these "poverty-stricken" migrants doing cheap stoop labor get the thousands of dollars to buy new identities? Does the Mexican govt have a hidden agenda? Is the Mexican govt "helping" illegals get false ID's?
REFERENCE Some bond sales are voted upon---by state ballot referenda. Mexico and these other groups may have led officials to mis-state the uses of tax-exempt bonds to voters. Moreover, if illegals voted on tax-exempt bond issues, that could negate the bond revenue and subject the illegals to prosecution
HERE'S WHAT TO DO (1) Investors in Arizona tax-exempt bonds may have been misled about the use of their investments. (2) MALDEF and other are thwarting laws and may have jeopardized investments in Arizona tax-exempt bonds
ACTION Do the research on timelines when Arizona legislators voted for the sale of billions of tax-exempt bonds to finance law enforcement, schools, highways, water facilities, municipal and county grants, etc, etc, etc. These bonds were then sold to tax-exempt investors.
MISLEADING BOND INVESTORS IS A SERIOUS CRIME Investors in Arizona tax-exempt bonds were clearly misled about the use of tax-exempt bond revenue. The SEC closely monitors tax-exempt bond sales. The SEC takes a dim view about misleading tax-exempt investors and the misuse of tax-exempt bond revenue. So does the IRS.
HERE'S WHAT TO DO:
(1) Express your concerns about Arizona elected officials under oath like Grijalva and the aforementioned who challenge the will of the people----that wont enforce the new immigration law; this is a misappropriation of tax-exempt bond revenue.
(2) Contact the IRS to report suspected tax fraud and tax law violations by officials using tax-exempt bond revenue in ways not disclosed to investors.
IRS TOLL-FREE Tel 1-800-829-0433 You may remain anonymous.
(3) Arizona elected officials under oath like Grijalva and the aforementioned officials who challenge the will of the people----that wont enforce new immigration law have co-opted investors in tax-exempt bonds; they should be reported for fiduciary negligence.
Demand that banks holding Arizona tax-exempt bond revenue conduct an outside audit immediately and reveal their findings (or you will report banks to state and federal regulators).
Bond sales that were put to referendum could be subject to penalties, if voters were misled about the uses of bond revenue.
The Arizona Secy of State should be asked to release all official documents filed WRT tax-exempt bond issues.
I say pull out of Korea and Afghanistan NOW and put those troops on our borders. The more immediate need is to take back occupied American land and secure the Nation.
Why would Mexico have any standing to sue Arizona over a state law? Any judge in his right mind should toss this one out before it goes anywhere.
What you’re saying is that you support illegal alien women being able to sneak across our border and give birth here in the US thereby guaranteeing all US citizen rights to their anchor babies.
Sorry, but I can’t go along with that. The citizenship of both parents should determine whose birth rights gets passed along.
Most days, I consider you to be an intelligent gal. Today, I am thinking, “Lizzie has flipped her durn wig!”
1. This part of the continent does not belong to you. You’re most likely Aztec or Olmec, two tribes that had very limited presence in the current-day United States of America. In all likihood, the Aztecs, Olmecs and Mayan invasions were constantly harassing the Navajo, Malibu, and Cherokee tribes and used the above tribes as victims for their religious ceremonies.
2. Mexico is the last country to talk about racism and bigotry. Afro-Mexicans and Mexican Amerinds face a lot of discrimination in Mexican society. Even Mexicans with mixed Amerind and European ancestry discriminate against Amerinds. Mexico also has some pretty interesting immigration laws itself. Regardless of any charges of racism, the law applies to ALL illegal immigrants, be it Irish, Russian, Caribbean or even Canadian.
3. Sorry, your “Continent” (Rather, a rather large subsection of two continents known as ‘North America’ and ‘South America’ you artificially combine as one because of your inferiority complex to the USA) is already under vast European influence. You speak Spanish, your culture is Spanish and you repress any non-Spanish culture in your countries. Your presidents and prime ministers are all mostly Spanish. Last time I checked, Spain was a part of Europe.
Quit bitching, wait for your turn in the Green Card Lottery and gain a skill before you immigrate here like everybody else who immigrated here did before they came to this country.
Why would Mexico have any standing to sue Arizona over a state law? Any judge in his right mind should toss this one out before it goes anywhere.
I posted the comic book yesterday...Guide for the Mexican Migrant
Jury nullification is our friend. Just like OJ. This is the new era when the leftist weapons are all being used against them for the first time ever.
This lawsuit needs to be thrown out as frivilous!
Also, we need to countersue for al the money illegal immigrants have cost the USA.
I saw this posted somewhere:
“Perhaps the USA will take back the other half of Mexico that we won in the war 150 years ago.
We can strip it of its resources the way the USSR did to Eastern Europe after WWII. The difference between the USA and the USSR is that Mexico actually OWES us for all the social services that we have provided to their illegal alien invaders. Not to mention all the jobs stolen from American citizens. We can take the oil, the good farmland, the riches of Mexico City and return the nearly worthless parts back to them as a gesture of good will.
La Raza needs to know that even though we won ALL of Mexico as spoils of war, we actually paid for the US portion of “Aztlan”.
They should not remind us that, by rights, all of Mexico should belong to the US.”
Additionally, Barnett has been sued previously for violation of the civil rights of illegals and he won the case.
He is not likely to lose this case either.
The plantiff(MALDEF) in this newest civil rights case is using faulty judgement. They are saying that since Barnett did lose another civil rights case brought some Americans of Mexican descent, then he will lose on violating the illegals' rights
The ONLY people that can say they were in AZ first are the Native Americans that were already on this side of the border. The descendants of the very few Mexican citizens that were in AZ 150 years and did not choose to go over the border back into Mexico at any point in the last 150 years can cliam they were here first. The ones that stayed in Mexico have NO claim.
Any illegals sneaking in now have ZERO claim.
The United States won it 150 years ago. Mexico had AZ for only about 25 years and there were only around 10,000 in the SW when we won the war.
The United States (Los Estados Unidos)was very generous when we won against Mexico. Mexico started the war. We won and couldve taken the entire country fair and square as the spoils of war.
You are probably correct, but I have little faith in our system of justice concerning illegal aliens at this time.
Welcome to Bizzaro World.
This may be the line drawn in the sand.
Lock and load!
Specifically, the Mexican lawyers insist that the interest in having “consistent relations with the United States shouldn’t be frustrated by one state.”
Shoot, shovel and shut-up!
Specifically, the Mexican lawyers insist ... Furthermore, the brief warns that if the law is put into practice, then the rights of Mexican citizens will be violated as a result of "racial profiling" that will accompany the enforcement of the law.
Got that ya'll; "The rights of Mexican Citizens'.
So to me that means that all the illegals here in the USA, oops, excuse me, I mean "Mexican Citizens", are not under the Jurisdiction of the United States. and as Mexican Citizens their allegiance is to Mexico, NOT the USA.
And if that's the Mexican Gubmint's stance, that would mean their BABIES born here are also Mexican Citizens and as such, DO NOT GET BIRTHRIGHT citizenship under the 14th Amendment, as they too are really 'protected' by their rights as Mexican Citizens.
So..... thank you Mexico. You just clarified our Anchor Baby dilemma! As far as you are concerned they are Mexican Nationals, not Americans.
Muchas gracias mi amigo!
This idiot is trying to link all of these people together.
Jan Brewer, Jeff Hall, JT Ready, Russell Pearce, Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Republican Ruth McClung running against Raul Grijalva in congressional district 7 showed up at his headquarters Saturday during a protest against a comment made by Grijalva who is calling for a boycott of Arizona to force repeal of SB1070.
During an interview on MSNBCs Keith Olberman, Grijalva said, Were asking organizations, civic, religious, labor, Latino, organizations of color to refrain from using Arizona as a convention site, to refrain from spending their dollars in the state of Arizona until Arizona turns the clock forward instead of backwards and joins the rest of the union.
That comment sparked the protest sponsored by the Pima County Republican Party in front of Grijalvas office.
Seriously. And sue the Feds for deriliction of duty.
I’ve been proposing claymores at the border for years. I’d put up trip flares first as a warning, then if they go farther, boom. The only glitch is the critters that could trigger either.
How can an illegal invader have “civil rights?”
With a government as evil and out-of-sync as ours anything is possible!
You are correct there how the grasping greedy Mexican gov’t is undermining the anchor baby deal they currently have going with the 14th Amendment
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.