Mexico, 10 other countries want a say on AZ immigration law appeal

[Scapegoat]

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_d13a3bc6-d01d-11df-8820-001cc4c002e0.html



PHOENIX - Mexico and 10 other Latin American countries want an appeals court to consider their viewpoints in an appeal of a ruling that put parts of Arizona's new immigration law on hold.

The countries are asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file friend-of-the-court briefs in Gov. Jan Brewer's appeal of the ruling.

The 11 countries say they have an interest in ensuring they have reliable relations with the United States that aren't frustrated by Arizona.

Mexico is joined in the request by Argentina, Boliva, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru.

Supporters of the law say it's intended to confront the state's vast illegal immigration woes that Washington is confronting adequately.

read comments here http://dynamic.azstarnet.com/commen...tries want a say on AZ immigration law appeal

 

[BluRaySS]

Of course they do, and I want a say on how to deal with their drug cartels and border jumpers... Guess who has a better chance! We need to invade that 3rd world appendage and make it profitable for America. Screw them!

 

[DanB]

I've wondered for awhile why TX, NM and California don't jump into the mix and pass laws like AZ. Then I realized why.

TX doesn't want to make legislation. its easier for residents to have plausable deniability when dead drug runners show up on some ranchers land.

NM doesn't take a step. Well look at the name of the state.

CA, well they are just to busy trying to get Homosexual Marriage legalized inbetween facelifts and boob jobs to pay attention to the problem. That and the state is just plain messed up to begin with.

AZ Why the hell not.

Unfortunately I'm afraid these 11 countries will end up having some influence on the outcome of this appeal.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I'm not sure who's on the panel, but I'll bet that the amicus curiae is allowed.

FRAP 29. BRIEF OF AN AMICUS CURIAE

(a) When Permitted.
The United States or its officer or agency, or a State, Territory, Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia may file an amicus-curiae brief without the consent of the parties or leave of court. Any other amicus curiae may file a brief only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing.

(b) Motion for Leave to File.
The motion must be accompanied by the proposed brief and state:

(1) the movant’s interest; and

(2) the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case.

(c) Contents and Form.
An amicus brief must comply with Rule 32. In addition to the requirements of Rule 32, the cover must identify the party or parties supported and indicate whether the brief supports affirmance or reversal. If an amicus curiae is a corporation, the brief must include a disclosure statement like that required of parties by Rule 26.1. An amicus brief need not comply with Rule 28, but must include the following:

(1) a table of contents, with page references;

(2) a table of authorities-cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes and other authorities-with references to the pages of the brief where they are cited;

(3) a concise statement of the identity of the amicus curiae, its interest in the case, and the source of its authority to file;

(4) an argument, which may be preceded by a summary and which need not include a statement of the applicable standard of review; and

(5) a certificate of compliance, if required by Rule 32(a)(7).

(d) Length.
Except by the court’s permission, an amicus brief may be no more than one-half the maximum length authorized by these rules for a party’s principal brief. If the court grants a party permission to file a longer brief, that extension does not affect the length of an amicus brief.

(e) Time for Filing.
An amicus curiae must file its brief, accompanied by a motion for filing when necessary, no later than 7 days after the principal brief of the party being supported is filed. An amicus curiae that does not support either party must file its brief no later than 7 days after the appellant’s or petitioner’s principal brief is filed. A court may grant leave for later filing, specifying the time within which an opposing party may answer.

(f) Reply Brief.
Except by the court’s permission, an amicus curiae may not file a reply brief.

(g) Oral Argument.
An amicus curiae may participate in oral argument only with the court’s permission.

 

[cjjtulsa]

May-he-co is just trying to show some of it's upcoming clout in the future North American Union. Why not start getting involved now?

 

[Glocktogo]

Since this is a federal court and most federal judges are completely incompetent buffoons, I'm sure they'll get to influence the process. After all, this is really about federal control over the states, not illegal immigration. Since federal judges work for the federal government, there's little doubt as to their allegiance.

I would simply point out that this is still the United STATES of America, not the Federalized States of America. Arizona is not making any legislation that applies outside their border. This is a jurisdictional matter wholly within the borders of the U.S. Outside nations should have absolutely no standing or influence in this case and should be ignored. These nations forget their place, which is to do whatever they wish once the case has come to it's final conclusion. I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate us meddling in their internal affairs.

 

[brazilianboy]

Bullshi*
Its ridiculous to see my country in that craplist!
All a bunch of failed countries...
That is not Brazil opinion... its Lula´s opinion !
And is worthless; he is a socialist bastard that wants a former leftist terrorist to be his successor...

 

[deja]

I've wondered for awhile why TX, NM and California don't jump into the mix and pass laws like AZ. Then I realized why.

TX doesn't want to make legislation. its easier for residents to have plausable deniability when dead drug runners show up on some ranchers land.

NM doesn't take a step. Well look at the name of the state.

CA, well they are just to busy trying to get Homosexual Marriage legalized inbetween facelifts and boob jobs to pay attention to the problem. That and the state is just plain messed up to begin with.

AZ Why the hell not.

Unfortunately I'm afraid these 11 countries will end up having some influence on the outcome of this appeal.

Actually, California was trying to ban it. But their courts struck the ban down.

 

[JB Books]

Well, if Arizona wants to stand alone, perhaps she shouldn't take Federal money? Like it or not, immigration is a FEDERAL matter. The FEDS have failed us on it. Which, makes Fallin's TV commercials trying to link Askins to illegal immigration kind of hypocritical. If Fallin is so concerned about illegal immigration why didn't she do something while in Congress?

We need to demand accountability from our Federal government on the immigration matter.

 

[Mos Eisley]

Bullshi*
Its ridiculous to see my country in that craplist!
All a bunch of failed countries...
That is not Brazil opinion... its Lula´s opinion !
And is worthless; he is a socialist bastard that wants a former leftist terrorist to be his successor...

Not a sorespot for ya, is it?

One other thing to add...We can't even get Mexico's cooperation in hunting for the body of that woman's husband who was attacked on Texas's Lake Falcon. They even have the gall to question it even happened! :finger:Mexico