The W
Views: 99942929
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
@372 .beats
The W - Current Events & Politics - Mexico threatens to sue the US over National Guard border patrols
This thread has 5 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.22
Pages: 1
(571 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (12 total)
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 798 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.07
In one of the more interesting stories I've seen lately, it appears that the Mexican Government is threatening to sue the US (news.yahoo.com) if President Bush follows through on his proposal to send troops from the National Guard to border regions.
    Originally posted by Maria Montemayor
    Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants.
    ...
    "If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station.


After the fairly reasonable discussion in this thread (The W), I'm wondering what people think about both the proposal and the threat from the Mexican government.
Personally, I'm not sure that the National Guard proposal is anything more than a symbolic move designed to appeal to the GOP base that Bush has alienated. I just don't see one person guarding every three miles of border (I know it doesn't work that way but it sure makes for a good illustration of the symbolic nature of the act) as an effective deterrent. I don't see much practical value in the proposal and I doubt it will do anything other than irritate an already irritated base when they feel that Bush is pandering to them and not taking their concerns seriously.
As for the threat of lawsuits, I'm really wondering exactly what legal theory they're going to try to use to argue that a sovereign nation doesn't have the right to defend their borders in the way in which they see fit. I'm guessing for something out of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (un.org), maybe based on Articles 13-15 or possibly taking the right to work angle and hanging it on Article 23. Of course, I'm also curious to see which publicity and sanction hungry lawyer will be willing to take the case, but that's more in the way of morbid curiosity than anything else.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
Promote this thread!
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.51
Well, first, a suit by a soverign nation against another one means beans if one doesn't want to listen to them. That would be like, demanding the a nation disarm and that nation saying "no". Is Foxy comin' over here? Let 'im come.

I think Bush has some good ideas on this. I think you have to draw a line and say "we're DONE. Nobody else comes in illegally. A good fence and decent border patrol will stop that. I hate to reward criminals, but the last thirty years have been years of not stopping something we knew was occuring. Let's draw the line, legitimize who is here and stop the rest.

And I think the NG can do the job better than the Border Patrol and certainly better than the Minutemen.

Fox may sue, but it won't mean anything. He'll need to - his country depends on the revenue sent back by Illegals.




We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
Deputy Marshall
Liverwurst








Since: 28.6.04
From: Troy, NY

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 1 day
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Well, first, a suit by a soverign nation against another one means beans if one doesn't want to listen to them. That would be like, demanding the a nation disarm and that nation saying "no". Is Foxy comin' over here? Let 'im come.


This is true in that the U.S. has a standing policy of only recognizing ICJ rulings on a case-by-case basis. However, in the article it states that Mexico is bringing the suit to US courts. Which confuses me, because I don't think one nation-state can bring suit against another nation-state without it automatically forwarding to the ICJ.

Regardless, I don't see what legal ground Mexico has to stand on here. If it did go to the ICJ, then I don't think a country can be at fault (in terms of international law) for detaining and deporting those who emigrate from their home country due to a cruddy economy. If they were being oppressed or their human rights were violated in their home country, that would be one thing and we'd be obligated to give them refuge. However that isn't the case, and I can't see how a nation-state could even make that argument in the first place (that they repress their own people).

And isn't arguing that the National Guard doesn't have the right to detain illegals when they cross the border arguing that the United States doesn't have right to detain illegals when they cross the border in the first place? Because legally, the detention and deportation of illegals is an administrative issue and the National Guard would have jursidiction to do as such (since they're under the Executive Branch).

    Originally posted by article
    Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Tuesday that Mexico accepted Bush's statement that the sending in the National Guard didn't mean militarizing the area. He also said Mexico remained "optimistic" that the U.S. Senate would approve an immigration reform "in the interests of both countries."


That's the reasoning behind the idea of sending 3,000 National Guard troops to the border to begin with. As others pointed out, it averages out to about one soldier for every three miles, which doesn't exactly set up an electric fence. This, to me, reads more as a situation where the Bush Administration is recognizing that the border patrol is understaffed and wants to use the Guard to supplement that.

(edited by Deputy Marshall on 17.5.06 1449)


Loyal MFer...er....SPFer.


Hey look, an emo-free LJ!
Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.97
There have been some really good articles about the immigration problem in recent issues of THE NEW REPUBLIC. In fact, here's a link to one (ssl.tnr.com). (I actually subscribe to this now, perhaps some of you should as well.)

Many Border Patrol officers and Minutemen now a days are only half heartedly doing the job they are paid to do. a good majority of them actually side with the illegals plight and condone them hopping the border to get here.

One thing that it kinda telling about this is that Mexico sees that they will be losing income by us sealing/tightening our border. A vast majority of these workers are not coming here to stay here and live here. The come to earn our money and go back home to spend it, which seems wrong to me, personally.

Unfortuneatly, if we succede in stopping them from doing this, the price of food will skyrocket because farmers will have to pay more to legal workers for picking the crops and tending the herds.

It's all a huge clusterfuck, lose/lose sitituation.

The one thing the people who oppose a stronger border seem to be ignoring, is that we call them 'illegals' for a reason. Because they are breaking our laws. We don't condone crack dealers and prostitutes for breaking the law, why should we look the other way when people sneak in here to earn our money?

    Expected Response
    How the fuck can you compare drug dealers and prostitutes to people who just want to better their lives by coming here to work? Geesh Cerebus, you're such an idiot!


Simple, because it's still a crime, no matter how you look at it. Sure, picking strawberries is different from selling crack, but you know what? We're losing income on both acts. Our country doesn't get taxes from the wages these workers earn just the same as we're not getting taxes off that prostitutes cooter or that vial of crack people are selling. As you can tell, I'm all for legalizing drugs and prostitution only to tax the fuck out of them. This way, we can at least control who gets it and protect the workers and users at the same time. (But this is for another post all together...)

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I think you have to draw a line and say "we're DONE. Nobody else comes in illegally.


Absolutely. Sadly, we already did this years ago, and it failed us then, just as it'll probably fail this time.

(edited by Cerebus on 17.5.06 1553)
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1986 days
Last activity: 1920 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.16
You realise, of course,that if the flow of illegals is halted then farmers/conglomerates/whoever can bend labour laws just as easily with legal American citizens? Paying someone a low wage, cash-in-hand, is just as easy to accomplish with a Kentuckian as it is with a Mexican.



To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires, and lights, in a box.-Edward R. Murrow
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    You realise, of course,that if the flow of illegals is halted then farmers/conglomerates/whoever can bend labour laws just as easily with legal American citizens? Paying someone a low wage, cash-in-hand, is just as easy to accomplish with a Kentuckian as it is with a Mexican.

Well, except for that whole pesky "if you complain we can have you and your family deported" threat. Though I suppose there are some who would say being sent to Kentucky is a threat...you might find james1978 there after all ;)



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.51
    Originally posted by spf
    Well, except for that whole pesky "if you complain we can have you and your family deported" threat. Though I suppose there are some who would say being sent to Kentucky is a threat...you might find james1978 there after all ;)


hey, Hey, HEy, HEY, HEY!, HEY!!!!!!!!!!

I resemble that remark.

I was thinkin that if them Ilegle people dont wan to wrok for moore money, than maybe they might want to join me at Al Snows rasslin' school up in Lama. I wuld be honored to be taught by suck a legend and maybe some of them there Mexicans could lend me there masks and I could be a Luckadore like the great Tito Santana. I culd be a hi-flier.




We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
Deputy Marshall
Liverwurst








Since: 28.6.04
From: Troy, NY

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 1 day
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
(deleted by CRZ on 17.5.06 1936)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.12
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    You realise, of course,that if the flow of illegals is halted then farmers/conglomerates/whoever can bend labour laws just as easily with legal American citizens? Paying someone a low wage, cash-in-hand, is just as easy to accomplish with a Kentuckian as it is with a Mexican.


Excep that there is what amounts to a labor shortage in areas that illegals fill. Your Kentuckian doesn't want and likely wouldn't take said jobs under any conditions.

Plus one of the arguments on eliminating this problem is that the illegals work more cheaply and drive wages down.



Perception is reality
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2026 days
Last activity: 1679 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.58
Like others have said I don't see how Mexico can have a case. It's not illegal for the US to put soldiers on their border.
Also Mexico while wanting to make the US look bad they are in a pretty precarious position here. Their immigration/border policy/treatment of illegals is terrible. Making noise about how the US is buisness as usual. Pissing off the US would hurt Mexico a lot.



Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.12
    Originally posted by Dahak
    Like others have said I don't see how Mexico can have a case. It's not illegal for the US to put soldiers on their border.
    Also Mexico while wanting to make the US look bad they are in a pretty precarious position here. Their immigration/border policy/treatment of illegals is terrible. Making noise about how the US is buisness as usual. Pissing off the US would hurt Mexico a lot.


They know they don't have a case. This is for positioning and bargaining. They also have to play to their own electorate. The figure we will cave on some items and they get a better deal. It also diverts attention from their treatment of their own citizens.



Perception is reality
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 42 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.78
What a coincidence. I was just thinking "What the immigration issue needs is for lawyers and the judicial system to get involved!" NOW we'll make some progress!

FLEA



Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high

1ryderfakin.com - THE IWC 100! And The Wrestling Dead Pool!! - next cash prize is $200! PLAY TO WIN!!!
Thread rated: 6.22
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Lay, Skilling convicted in Enron collapse
Next thread: National Parks Are Now Breeding Grounds For The Plague.
Previous thread: Nothin' like transparency in a Democracy - Lawyers denied clearance to investigate the NSA
(571 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The sad part of this is that many of us wont agree. Many are willing to surrender the Bill of Rights for a false sense of security. Remember we have laws on the books from the "war" on drugs that also fall into this category.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Mexico threatens to sue the US over National Guard border patrolsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.122 seconds.