Mexican Authority to sue Arizona in Int. Courts

[Mr.Vicchio]

A Mexican government official has threatened to use international courts to block an Arizona law meant to limit public benefits and voting rights to illegal residents of the U.S. Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said in a radio interview Wednesday that an international strategy would be used if other attempts to reverse Proposition 200 fail, the Associated Press reported. "We are seeking all the legal opportunities that exist, first using the legal capacities of the United States itself and ... if that does not work, bringing it to international tribunals," AP quotes Derbez as saying. Mexican officials have repeatedly complained about Proposition 200, which went into effect Tuesday. The statewide measure denies most taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens and requires state workers to report applicants for such benefits who may not be eligible. It also requires anyone registering to vote in the state to show proof of citizenship and bring a government-issued ID to the polling place. AP reported Derbez expressed regret that, according to polls, about 40 percent of Mexican-Americans in Arizona supported Prop. 200. The measure passed with 60 percent of the vote. "It's sad, and it gives an idea of how we have to work to educate even our own Mexican-Americans about why it is important that these proposals are not accepted," Derbez said. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund has challenged Prop. 200, saying it is "an illegal, impermissible, unconstitutional state attempt to regulate immigration policy, which is a fundamental function and responsibility of our federal government. Proposition 200 is mean-spirited and un-American." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42589

This, just got my blood boiling. This statement by the "anti-Prop 200" guy really take the cake IMHO:

"It's sad, and it gives an idea of how we have to work to educate even our own Mexican-Americans about why it is important that these proposals are not accepted"

Grrr, and the MALDEF calling it mean spirited and un-american??? What it's unAmerican to deny lawbreakers a free ride on the backs of the tax payers? I say we need MORE scourging of the leeches from the dole.

[rmnunez]

Mexican officials have repeatedly complained about Proposition 200, which went into effect Tuesday. The statewide measure denies most taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens and requires state workers to report applicants for such benefits who may not be eligible. It also requires anyone registering to vote in the state to show proof of citizenship and bring a government-issued ID to the polling place.

Denying taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens makes sense as long as these undocumented workers are not taxpayers too and I'm not at all certain none are. It is a fact many undocumented Mexicans who work in the US pay other than consumption taxes (like on cigarrettes or alcohol). If "taxpayers" is short for income tax return filers, it would be interesting to know what proportion of the undocumented are genuine taxpayers. It is said many have phony social security numbers but with these they could be actually paying state and federal income tax, having deductions withheld and such.

Having the state workers report applicants who are ineligible makes sense, but only inasmuch as it saves the state from expense in processing their application subsequently by identifying the ineligible. The only other effect from reporting ineligible applicants would be for those among them who are undocumented immigrants to get deported, this saves the state nothing that identifying, though not reporting the ineligible wouldn't.

Requiring anyone registering to vote in the state show proof of citizenship makes sense only if they are registering to vote in federal elections since states don't issue proof of state citizenship. Just picture the situation where an 18 year-old son of an undocumented Mexican immigrant, with his proof of citizenship (a state-issued birth certificate) goes to register.

Is a driver's license a "government-issued" id?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez Is a driver's license a "government-issued" id?

State government only, and the requirements to get one vary from state to state, but they are usually way too lax to be used as an official ID. In Delaware, all you need is a utility bill and you're allowed to get a license.

However, a drivers license is acceptable proof for a lot of things in the U.S., although it shouldn't be.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Grrr, and the MALDEF calling it mean spirited and un-american??? What it's unAmerican to deny lawbreakers a free ride on the backs of the tax payers? I say we need MORE scourging of the leeches from the dole.

It never fails to amaze me how people seem to conveniently ignore the "ILLEGAL" part of "illegal immigrant." I for one don't agree with ANY concession to illegals, except a free ride back to wherever they came from. rmnunez is probably right that some illegals pay taxes, but then again they illegally EARN the money they pay those taxes with in the first place. If by rights you don't deserve to MAKE the money to begin with, don't bitch that some of it is paid in tax.

If they want to be citizens or even DOCUMENTED aliens, fine. If they want to change the laws concerning illegals, fine. If Bush wants to annex the whole damn country of Mexico and make crossing the Rio Grande as easy as I go from Delaware to New Jersey, fine. But for the time being, they ARE ILLEGAL and should be treated as such.

[tinybear]

Who's the idiot who thought of this ridiculous lawsuit? I hope the Court gives it the contempt and ridicule it thoroughly deserves.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Well ya know, if you are here legally, following the rules and laws of this fair land... I'll help you move in and call you neighbor.

Here ILLEGALLY... out. I'll call INS on you in a heartbeat.

I't's not cold hearted, it's jsut how things SHOULD be.

[rmnunez]

Okay, lets figure driver’s licenses are not deemed “government-issued” id for voter-registration purposes and that whatever id is required for this be what must be shown to qualify for taxpayer-paid benefits, how does a welfare mom in Philadelphia show proof of eligibility? What id issued by the government, other than the DMV does the average gringo carry? Military id would work, but its not something all gringoes do, the government is huge and its employees all get ids, but its not everyone either. Some DMVs issue id cards that are not driver’s licenses, but all they want is proof of residence. You’ve got to come up with some “government-issued” id that fits all gringoes, their prefered choice is the driver’s license, which legally is not a citizenship-derived id. Citizenship is not required for gringoes to operate a car overseas, should it be required of foreigners in the US? Wouldn’t that be a North Koreanesque excess?

Derbez is no idiot and likely positioning himself for the presidency, additionally he is the Mexican Secretary of State and Mexicans abroad are within his jurisdiction -he has to file a claim on their behalf if there is reason to believe they are the victims of some abuse by a foreign government. The claim has merit under US law, if the Federal Court dismisses it there are genuine grounds for recourse to international law. The US needs to come up with a middle ground because theoretically there are just these 2 extremes which can be reduced to “seal the border” or “freeloading for all” when in reality there is need for seasonal workers and often their seasons are recurring and last most of a year when they are usually contributing more to the US economy than many of the taxpayers there, and sometimes even fiscally so. Legalizing the undocumented would simply make room for that many more undocumenteds and this is a problem. Requiring they become citizens to remain is an interesting proposition, its an option now, one not prefered by most of the immigrants residing in the US (legal or not).

[Mr.Vicchio]

There is a legal way, and an illegal way for workers from Mexico to come here and work.

There is no international anything that should have any bearing on this. The will of the people of Arizona cannot be overturned by an international court.

To allow such to occur would be a great underminning of the American system of Government.

[Sandy]

I live in Arizona and I resent the illegals coming in for free health care by using the emergency rooms of the hospitals. It cost Arizona $38 million dollars last year. Arizona has a large proportion of Mexicans and we love them; but only if they are here legally! Even my Mexican neighbors are furious with the thought of Amnesty givening all illegals a free pass to stay in America.

This Amnesty program is the fastest way of removing our American sovereignty and yet people don't realize it. I doubt of the voters in 2004 can even define American Sovereignty. Only 30 years of dumbing down our voters would allow something like this to even be discussed. I'm driving my Congressman mad by insisting that he stand up for the Constitution! I even sent him a free copy of it in case the voters to put him back in didn't realize what a dunce he is.

We are all at fault for this by not insisting our Congressmen start working according to the law. We are all equally guilty of allowing Bush to have a second term.

[Korgmeister]

Shit man, did I wake up in a parrellel universe or something?

The US passes what I call a "duh" law*, and the Mexican government decides to sue over it?

Precisely when was it acceptable for someone to cross an international border without permission and then act as if they're entitled to public benefits and can vote?

Mexico really does need to stop pretending it's the 51st state of the Union. This is getting ridiculous.

*As in "Someone made a law that says $COMMONSENSETHING"
"Duh!"

[Mr.Vicchio]

Sandy, Bush will never get that passed, and your comment shows the depth of how little you understand American Voters or what would have happened if the opposition had won.

Nothing would have changed, and Kerry would have supported any lawsuit. Even against America.

BTW as much as I love Bush, the Amnesity thing has me seriously up in arms.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Nothing would have changed, and Kerry would have supported any lawsuit. Even against America.

Pure speculation, Mr V. You don't know that and I tend to think Kerry would not support this anymore than you and I do. I saw Kerry as more of a moderate. We're not talking Ted Kennedy here.

BTW as much as I love Bush, the Amnesity thing has me seriously up in arms.

Should I take this to indicate you are rethinking your support for Bush? :)

[Milton Bradley]

Scribbler got it right. As long as the word illegall is attached to this article, somebody needs a ride out of the country, and then they can go home, and cry to heir Momma.


No legitamate arguement can be made to allow certain groups to remaiin above the law.


Perhaps a little vigilante justice is in order here. It seems to be the only kind of justice still functioning in America in the twenty first century.

[rmnunez]

The legal way for Mexicans to migrate to the US is too cumbersome and takes too long, one has to apply in their embassy and it takes years for the applications to be processed, then only some are admitted based on certain quotas. This process is completely within what the US righteously may require and is accepted practice by many governments, but in the US case we are dealing with the top 'magnet' for immigrants and in the Mexican case with a people not accustomed to find sense in any governmental regulations and with dire needs. Additionally, circumstances have changed radically since the immigration regulations were crafted. Originally immigrants made their way to the US with the hope of becoming citizens, its been a long time since this aim was relegated to a secondary status and just finding work is what moves them now. People can travel more easily and the cost is relatively lower now so we see immigration from more remote places. Quotas need to be adjusted as certain groups are no longer migrating and others not considered before have taken their place. Finally there are all those Mexicans in the US irregularly who don't fit well under the current scheme which only sees 2 types of foreigners in the US; lawful residents and tourists.

[Milton Bradley]

Following our own laws are to cumbersome, and I decided I'll just shoot first, and ask questions later.


Have a nice day.

[rmnunez]

Milton, if you had to wait 3 years to lawfully operate a car, would it be as wrongful for you to do so without a license?

[Mr.Vicchio]

If you had to see the bill for you taxes, where they were spent, and saw a large % going towards law breakers, would you be impressed?

Oh and Scribbler, not a chance. I am not a simple minded one issue voter.

[rmnunez]

I think the proportion of taxes spent on "law breakers" is a bit ambiguous, do you mean what jails, police and courts cost or would this include estimates of costs allegedly associated in caring for undocumenteds?

[Milton Bradley]

rmnunez, you are advoacting that people break OUR laws, and then you insist thhat we honor them when dealing with the law breakers.


Until you realize the futility of your goal here, there is little reason to argue your points, which are just full of assumptions.


You, Sir, have some pretty big stones to sit there in Mexico City, and attempt to dictate policy to us, and allocate our tax dollars.


My previous post was intended to point out the futility of reasoning with the unreasonable.

[rmnunez]

Milton, the US isn't applying its own laws, otherwise we wouldn't have about 20 million undocumenteds in the US generating about $200 billion a year in income. The present situation is one where the laws forbid Mexicans to go to the US the way most do, but encourage them to do so with all sorts of facilities for those who go. The easiest solution to the problem of undocumenteds in the US would be to severely punish those making use of them, but this is never going to happen because the employers of undocumenteds represent such a substantial part of the US economy. Undocumented Mexicans work in a wide range of areas producing value cheaper than otherwise would result, if these workers were removed, costs for everything from farm produce to office maintenance would go up. The sheer numbers involved mean the added costs would be strongly felt by everyone. Avoiding the added costs is probably one of the reasons why so little is done to curtail undocumenteds employ.

The argument undocumenteds are some sort of drain on the US economy because they demand extensive welfare or social services is simply not borne by the facts. We can't know for certain how many obtain such benefits, but it seems likely many who do would not as undocumenteds rather than through some misrepresentation of their status. Given that it is known the Mexicans in the US send about a third of that country's GNP back home, it seems reasonable to figure these aren't the welfare dependant ones. Since obtaining those benefits jeopardizes undocumenteds capacity to remain in the US working, it also seems reasonable they'd shun turning to the state for help either.