Skip to content

At the not-so-O.K. Corral

18 June 2010

Pass the popcorn… this is gonna be fun.

From the East Valley Tribune (Mesa, Arizona):

Gov. Jan Brewer lashed out at the president and his administration Thursday, saying they effectively announced — in Ecuador — that the federal government will sue Arizona over the state’s new immigration law.

“That is just totally outrageous,” the governor said after being told of a televised interview Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did while traveling. She said there is no reason Arizonans should have to learn through a blog post of an interview she did with NTN-24.

Five lawsuits already have been filed in federal court contending various provisions of the law are unconstitutional. Challengers want a federal judge to block the measure from taking effect as scheduled on July 29 while the bill’s legality is litigated.

“That’s not how you do business,” Brewer said of Clinton’s statement. “That’s not how you treat other elected officials.”

Ms. Clinton, as Secretary of State has to deal with foreign affairs, and the Arizona law is negatively impacting international relations (not to mention probably breaking a number of international treaties) which probably gives the State Department standing in a lawsuit.    However, Mrs. Clinton is not an “other elected official” … cabinet officers being appointed by the President (after approval by the Senate).  For that matter, Mrs. Brewer was not elected to her post either.  She was State Secretary of State (which has nothing to do with international affairs, but is the chief elections officer of Arizona) and appointed to complete the elected governor’s term when that governor (Janet Napolitano) was appointed (with the approval of the Senate) as Secretary of Homeland Security.

Besides, whose fault is it if Mrs. Brewer doesn’t read the blogs from Ecuador, huh?  She might be wise to read ones from Mexico, too.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. Tio Foncho permalink
    18 June 2010 10:50 am

    Well, if you say AB 1070 is breaking international law because it could lead to racial profiling, then Mexican law definitely breaks international law, as it has no prohibition against racial profiling and illegal immigrants are routinely deported without trial (after being raped and robbed by Mexican police.)

  2. 18 June 2010 11:46 am

    Did I say anything about Mexican immigration law? Besides being a “mommy, they do it too” argument, it’s not what the State Department is talking about. I suggest you read Chin, Gabriel J., Hessick, Carissa Byrne, Massaro, Toni M. and Miller, Marc L., Arizona Senate Bill 1070: A Preliminary Report (June 8, 2010). Available at SSRN: prepared by several Arizona law professors who were tasked with studying the proposed bill and its effects on the legal system in that state.

  3. Tio Foncho permalink
    19 June 2010 11:39 am

    Why do I have to read that crap? The lawsuits against SB1070 have been filed in federal court and the issue will be decided by federal judges. The people shouting in the grandstands don’t decide the law.

    And no, you said nothing about Mexican immigration law. However you did say SB1070 breaks “international law”. Since Mexico is also a member of the international community and subject to the same international laws, an accomplished essayist would mention that aspect. To do otherwise is just the fallacy of cherry-picking. Deciding which facts to present while omitting other relevant facts.

  4. 19 June 2010 2:50 pm

    No, you don’t have to “read that crap”, but lawyers and judges who will decide on the law in U.S. courts do… and will.

    Mexico is a different country, and its laws have nothing to do with the laws of the United States: nor would violations of treaties by a foreign country have anything to do with U.S. law in this (or any other) matter.

    If Mexico’s laws violate international treaty, that would be an issue for the Mexican courts … and, possibly, La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.

    “That crap” is called legal analysis. Get used to it. It’s the law.

  5. Tio Foncho permalink
    20 June 2010 1:12 am

    Richard, legal analysis is no more the law than letters to the editor in the Sunday newspaper are the news. Each party to a lawsuit does their own legal analysis and only one party wins. How can you have such a child-like understanding of the US legal sytem? Have you lived outside the US all your adult life?

    More importantly, how can you expect to establish any credibility as an author with such lopsided and biased writing? How can anyone have confidence in your research? If you cannot seperate out facts from opinions, why would anyone believe your history of Mexico?

  6. Maggie permalink
    21 June 2010 11:25 pm

    That’s okay Richard, he says the same things to me. blah, blah, blah.

    He’s such an asshole, heh, I think the cow idea was good, go for it.

Leave a reply, but please stick to the topic

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: