Mexico joins legal challenge to Arizona's illegal immigration law

In what can only be described as an act of shear audacity and hypocrisy, Mexico (that's right the nation of Mexico) has filed a brief in the court case challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law addressing illegal immigration.

According to CNN:

Mexico on Tuesday filed a brief in federal court in Arizona supporting a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a tough new immigration law, Mexico's foreign ministry said.

The lawsuit seeks to overturn SB 1070, a recently passed law due to go into effect late next month, which stipulates that police can ask the residency status of people being investigated for a crime.

"The government of Mexico has requested the court that SB 1070 be declared unconstitutional and that it does not enter into force," the foreign ministry said in a written statement.

The Mexican government gave its support to the lawsuit filed by a group of civil rights organizations, including the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In its brief, Mexico "underscored that it is fundamental and imperative that the human and civil rights of its citizens are duly respected while present in Arizona or in any other state of the United States," the foreign ministry said.

In filing the brief, Mexico said it was upholding its duty to protect its nationals in the United States and ensure that they are not discriminated against based on their ethnicity.

The case is Friendly House, et al v. Michael B. Whiting, et al.

Considering how Mexico treats immigrants to their county (illegal or legal), it is unfathomable that they would have the nerve to challenge anyone else. To place their hypocrisy into proper perspective here are excerpts from an article that ran in the Washington Times on 4/6/06 entitled “The Mexican Solution,” by Frank Gaffney, Jr.:

Under . . . [the Mexican] constitution first adopted in 1917 and subsequently amended, Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called "racist" and "xenophobic."

For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:

• Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.

• Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."

• Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

• Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers, as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.

• In accordance with Article 130, immigrants -- even legal ones -- may not become members of the clergy, either.

• Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."

• Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."

• What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right.

• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners -- not just illegal immigrants -- may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

And in April 2010, Michelle Malkin wrote a piece "How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens" where she points out the following:

--Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

--Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

-- Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

So, the next time the Mexican government decides to chime in when it comes to how we conduct ourselves here in the US, I would encourage them to first clean up their own mess

'A More Perfect Union': An Address for the Ages

For those of you who somehow missed it, yesterday's address (it was more than a speech) by presidential hopeful Barack Obama was - by any objective measure - historic.

Sen. Obama addressed head-on not only his relationship with controversial Pastor Jeremiah Wright, but the Address may also serve as a first step to a more honest public dialogue - the creation of a space where we can honestly address a topic at the heart of our deepest fears as a society: race.

What do I mean? Obama was able to validate and make real the concerns of both whites and blacks with regard to race fears - the fear whites have of displacement and reverse-discrimination; the fears blacks (and other people of color) have of continued oppression and exploitation.

It was his validation of white fear, however, which I believe was the most important element of his Address. Obama stated:

"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.


"Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation..."

White's have been loath to articulate themselves on this issue as clearly as this man of African and Kansan descent did yesterday morning, for fear of condemnation. By not merely dismissing these fears, but rather by acknowledging and validating them, he has opened a door of dialogue... a chance for Americans - particularly white ones - to feel empowered to address the issue honestly.

To his critics, Sen. Obama's Address may not have effectively distanced him from Pastor Wright, nor aided his campaign to win the Democratic nomination. Pundits are already lining up to pigeonhole him, to reduce him to the company he keeps. Barack Obama, to many, is just another 'race candidate', effectively dooming him to the Jacksonian margins as the 'candidate who can't'.


Senator Obama's campaign is more than that. It is helping all of us somehow feel better about our imperfect selves. His words remind us that we are all flawed, imperfect human beings, and that we sometimes love people whom others despise, and that our fears - which we may express as racialized anger - are actually misplaced. If we can honestly get past that, then I will count his candidacy a success - no matter the outcome.
__________________________________________

And address for the ages? Pft….No even close! You are right about a few things though.

First of all, Obama did the best job he could have possibly done in addressing the Jeremiah Wright issue. If this had been his explanation from the get go, the fall out would not have been as bad. But because his first response was “I was never at church when he said these things.” And “He never expressed these views to me.” This follow up explanation rang a little hollow to me.

Secondly, he did bring up the very legitimate gripes that many white Americans have with the portrayal of them as an oppressive people who have all benefited directly from slavery and the oppression of black people. My only question is, how many in the black community simply dismissed it as “white rage” and declared that “They are just in denial”.

David,

Maybe he is making you and the rest of the Obamaniacs “feel better about your imperfect selves”. But I am still looking past the spin for some substance.