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 America’s Voice, one of the chief pro-amnesty activists, and Esther Olavarria, the policy director for DHS who used to be Kennedy’s 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 they’re 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 who’d 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 don’t 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 they’d moved forward with them in 2007, they might well have gotten them passed. If they’d 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 don’t 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 won’t 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 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.
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.
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.”
Welcome to Bizzaro World.
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! 
Ping!
This idiot is trying to link all of these people together.
Jan Brewer, Jeff Hall, JT Ready, Russell Pearce, Sheriff Joe Arpaio
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/06/jan_brewer_joe_arpaio_russell.php
Pretty lame.
Seriously. And sue the Feds for deriliction of duty.