“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Friday, December 28, 2012

Hey Mexico, spare us your lectures, clean up your own mess.


Mexico urges US court to block part of Arizona law




By JACQUES BILLEAUD
Associated Press

PHOENIX (AP) - The Mexican government has urged a U.S. court to stop Arizona from enforcing a minor section of the state's 2010 immigration law that prohibits the harboring of illegal immigrants.
Lawyers representing Mexico asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a filing Wednesday to uphold a lower-court ruling that blocked police from enforcing the ban. Mexico argued the ban harms diplomatic relations between the United States, undermines the U.S.'s ability to speak to a foreign country with one voice and encourages the marginalization of Mexicans and people who appear to be from Latin America.

"Mexico cannot conduct effective negotiations with the United States when the foreign policy decisions of the federal governments are undermined by the individual policies of individual states," lawyers for the Mexican government said in a friend-of-the-court brief.

The harboring ban was in effect from late July 2010 until U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked its enforcement on Sept. 5. Two weeks before Bolton shelved the ban, she said during a hearing that she knew of no arrests that were made under the provision.

The prohibition has been overshadowed by other parts of the law, including a requirement that went into effect on Sept. 18 that officers, while enforcing other laws, question the immigration status of those suspected of being in the country illegally.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the questioning requirement earlier this year, but also struck down other sections of the law, such as a requirement that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers. The nation's highest court didn't consider the harboring ban.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure known as SB1070 into law and serves as the statute's chief defender, has asked the appeals court to reverse Bolton's ruling on the harboring ban.

Brewer spokesman Matt Benson said Arizona's harboring ban mirrored federal law and that Mexico was interfering with a matter in U.S. courts.

"Mexico's own immigration laws are significantly more heavy-handed than anything imposed as a result of SB1070. Does the Mexican government believe the nearly identical U.S. federal law harms diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Mexico?" he said.

This wasn't the first time a foreign government has chimed in during disputes over the immigration law.

In 2010, Mexico urged the courts to declare the law unconstitutional, and 10 other Latin American countries had joined in expressing their opposition to the law.

Brewer had said the foreign governments were meddling in an internal legal dispute between the United States and one of its states.

No other countries have joined in Mexico's latest friend-of-court brief.


44 comments:

  1. What are the chances that the Obama Administration encouraged Mexico to file this suit?

    More lawfare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you expect from our friends to the south? They are back: The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).

      Huge chunks of Mexican media are owned by wealthy oligarchs perennially associated with the old ruling party.

      Alternative sources such as La Jornada, Proceso and Contralinea (constantly written off as muck-raking, left-wing rags) cover Mexico’s reality, along with online activists and bloggers. Facebook and Twitter make up much of the political and social organizing.

      The US is a useful human safety valve for Mexico’s social problems. Why do we tolerate it? Guess.

      $$$

      Delete
    2. $$$

      In the immediate aftermath of 2008, the news media was saturated with naval-gazing stories speculating about The End of Capitalism As We Know It. At the time, I thought it hyperbolic, overwrought, and borderline suspicious.

      Now I'm not so sure. The social scientists tell us that religion is supposed to mute the Seven Deadlies. Beats me. But when all roads lead to money, well it's all about balance isn't it?

      And getting a grip on the loathing, contempt and disgust.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How about a new idea...

    We advertise...

    "If you are rich, intelligent, literate and Mexican? Come to America. Bring your wealth and talents and get instant American citizenship. It's time to abandon Mexico."


    ReplyDelete
  6. Why would such a person come to the U.S. They already have the society, there, that the Republicans are trying to create, here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Mexico sucks.

      Delete

    2. Republicans must not think so. They're trying hard to replicate "Mexico," here.

      Delete
  7. Replicating the walled and gated private enclaves across the Republican Arc.

    Just as exist for the 'Rulers & Masters' in Old Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
  8. .

    It does appear we are moving towards an anarco-capitalistic world where anyone who can afford it has his own hacienda guarded by private security forces to protect him from the smell of the hoi poloi.

    However, it is a class thing not a political thing.

    Anyone who accepts the trinkets for the natives offered up by one side or the other and thinks 'hey, these guys are really on our side' are truly benighted, or in the old venacular, chumps.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      "...hoi polloi..."

      Sounds almost Hawiian.

      .

      Delete
  9. True, speech recognition is still imperfect; according to the software, one irate caller informed me that I was “fall issue yet.” But it’s vastly better than it was just a few years ago, and has already become a seriously useful tool. Object recognition is a bit further behind: it’s still a source of excitement that a computer network fed images from YouTube spontaneously learned to identify cats. But it’s not a large step from there to a host of economically important applications.

    So machines may soon be ready to perform many tasks that currently require large amounts of human labor. This will mean rapid productivity growth and, therefore, high overall economic growth.

    But — and this is the crucial question — who will benefit from that growth? Unfortunately, it’s all too easy to make the case that most Americans will be left behind, because smart machines will end up devaluing the contribution of workers, including highly skilled workers whose skills suddenly become redundant. The point is that there’s good reason to believe that the conventional wisdom embodied in long-run budget projections — projections that shape almost every aspect of current policy discussion — is all wrong.

    What, then, are the implications of this alternative vision for policy? Well,

    I don' know

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, the lying, phony, punk-assed republicans say they want to balance the budget? Well,

    Here's the Revenue, needed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Tell it to the Dems.

      If we go over the fiscal cliff as it appears we will, revenues will revert to levels prior to the Bush tax cuts. It's estimated total revenues will go up about $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years.

      If the GOP got their way, we would lose that $3.7 trillion revenue. However, if the plan proposed by Obama goes into effect, revenues would still drop by $3 trillion.

      So going with the Dem plan we would add $0.7 trillion, or $700 billion in revenue over 10 years, $70 billion a year. That will hardly make a dent in trillion dollar deficit.

      Now I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed more. They have been living off the fat of the land for the last decade or so. And given the growing income inequality in this country, we could, IMO, use more progressive tax rates.

      However, look at all the tax cuts that have been installed under Obama. And with these latest proposals, it's laughable to suggest EITHER party is actually trying to reduce the deficit through tax increases.

      Face it, you are not going to get there using increased revenue along. You also will need spending cuts and so far I have seen few specifics mentioned on that side of the equation.

      Chances are we will still just follow that can down the road.

      .

      Delete
  11. .

    Yet, for fiscal year 2012 government spending was about $3.6 trillion or nearly 23% of GPD.

    Balance the budget? Laughable.

    Neither side wants to balance the budget. The GOP wants to shrink the size of government while the Dems want to grow it.

    Neither side cares dick about cutting the budget. What we see right now is political kabuki, doing the minimum they are forced to by political reality.

    Picking sides in this charade is a fool's game.

    .

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the repubs don't want to "shrink" the size of the government. They just want to spend the money on those things that will make "Them" money - Wars, Airplanes, Aircraft Carriers, etc.

      Delete
    2. And all the Dims want to do is keep their Useful Idiots in check with give away programs. Free Candy made in China. yessirree.

      Delete
    3. Well, it was the stinking assed pubs that bought the candy factory and sent it to China. Whatt're yagonnado?

      Delete
    4. I have yet to see any evidence that the Republicans want th 'Shrink' the Federal government.

      MediCare Part D, exemplorary of GOP policy.

      Delete
    5. Their formal excuse is that Medicare part D was the quid pro quo for obtaining Democratic support for the GWB adventures in ME.

      Politics the old fashioned way.

      But I guess there isn't any other kind.

      Delete
    6. .

      I have yet to see any evidence that the Republicans want th 'Shrink' the Federal government

      Seek and ye shall find, rat.

      As I said, neither side has any real interest in shrinking the budget; however, the GOP does like the idea of shrinking the government. Of course, not all the government, just those parts that interfere with their vision of a 'free market'. That's why you see them pushing budget cuts for EPA, HHS, SEC, etc., you know, agencies that put out the rules and regulations that interfere with their view of capitalism. Starve the beast and you not only stop their expansion (and if you are lucky actually force some cuts) but you also restrict the operating funds they need to do their jobs. Take a look at where the cuts are that are being pushed through the House.

      With regard to social programs, all you have to is look at the Ryan budget. Given that he uses the same slight of hand the Dems use in developing their proposals, his budget is a rather tame attempt at cutting deficits, much less of cutting into the debt. However, what he does introduce into the Medicare discusssion is the idea of 'privitization'. It's an idea at least as old as Bush II and Ryan introduces it gradually but still it is a foot in the door were it to pass, just as Obamacare is a big foot in the door in the movement to single payer.

      If you take out defense, interests, and other functions required to keep the government functioning you are left with the remaining 60% that goes to education and social programs.

      It may just be a GOP wet dream, but that's a whole lot of government availible to cut.

      .

      Delete
  12. Why does everyone ignore this?

    Federal Outlays in 2009: $3,520,082

    Federal Outlays in 2012: $3,538,446

    Treasury Statement

    Once you factor in some inflation, Spending is dropping significantly, Every year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      In 2009, we had our largest budget deficit ever. The deficits have been dropping about $100 billion a year since then.

      But each year we have spent more than a $1 trillion more than we brought in. In 2012, the deficit was $1.1 trillion. In 2013, it's still (in the absence of an extended fiscal cliff) projected to be about around a $1 trillion.

      Pardon me if I'm not especially impressed with the boys in OZ.

      .

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another Ethanol Refinery goes off the nat gas pipe.

    Pass on the Gas

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. One of the modern offerings from urban planners is called "Smart Growth" which allegedly aims for the development of demographically integrated neighborhoods designed with a self-sustaining mixture of commercial, business, and residential development. (A bike to work deal.) Portland, OR is the most famous example in western USA. Back when the city's elite were evaluating the results of their efforts, noticeably gentrification and increased racial segregation, the wags started in: "Dickensian Gloom;" Dumbing down Smart Growth; and my favorite, Smart Growth being a conspiracy to "Send Mexicans Across (the) Rio Today."

    ReplyDelete
  17. This fiscal cliff actually does what needs be done - raise taxes and cut spending. Maybe grid lock really is a feature and not a bug.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      The boys in OZ set themselves up for this one. It was the Dems who dreamed up the sequestration idea, trying to be too smart by half. They showed their stupidity by assuming that no one could be so stupid as to let us go over the fiscal cliff, clearly ignoring past evidence that there is nothing too stupid for the boys in OZ to try.

      It is one more example of the elected oompa loompas of OZ shirking the job they were elected to do, looking for an excuse, someone to blame. Now, when they come up with something, no matter what it is, they will be able to say "They made me do it. I had no choice." And if it goes over the cliff, they will be able to say they lowered taxes.

      More kabuki.

      .

      Delete
    2. .

      If we go over the cliff, I tend to agree with the concensus of analysts who say it will be brief and any changes will be made retroactive.

      I don't know enough to say just how big going over the cliff for an extended period would be (I was wrong on the extent of having our credit rating lowered). There seems to be a majority of opinion that it could lead to recession, not good given we were just starting to see the light in a number of key sectors.

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      The problem with the fiscal cliff is twofold:

      1. The cuts and tax increases happen all at once rather than gradually which would allow the system to adjust to the changes.

      2. The cuts are done across the board not allowing for setting the proper priorities (whatever those are).

      .

      Delete
    4. Maybe a recession is necessary if one addresses the deficit?

      Delete
    5. 1. Can the doofuses of oz engineer a soft landing?
      2. The doofuses of oz appear incapable of such decisions.

      Delete
    6. .

      See my response to Rufus' post which includes the Revenue Chart above.

      Anything that comes out of the negotiations will be watered down and useless in the long run. A little more mummary. We'll see a few more euphemisms thrown around. On the last post we talked of the military's penchant for silly names for their campaigns. Wait until you see the name OZ comes up with for this bill.

      We will continue kicking the can down the road, another year lost, the boys in OZ another year closer to their pensions or that cushy lobbyist job.

      .

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ROBERT B. REICH:

    Public opinion is already running strongly in favor of President Obama and the Democrats, and against the GOP. In the latest CNN/ORC poll, 48 percent say they'll blame Republicans if no deal is reached while 37 percent blame Obama. Confidence in congressional Republicans is hovering at about 30 percent; Obama is enjoying the confidence of 46 percent. And over half of all Americans think the GOP is too extreme.

    Yet Republicans haven't budged. The fact is, they may not care a hoot about the opinions of most Americans.

    That's because the national party is in disarray. Boehner isn't worried about a challenge to his leadership; no challenger has emerged. The real issue is neither he nor anyone else is in charge of the GOP. Romney's loss, along with the erosion of their majority in the House and Democratic gains in the Senate, has left a vacuum at the top.

    House Republicans don't run nationally. They run only in their own districts -- which, because of gerrymandering, are growing even more purely Republican. Their major concern is being reelected in 2014, and their biggest potential obstacle in their way is a primary challenge from the right.

    The combination of a weakened national party and more intense competition in primaries is making the Republican Party relatively impervious to national opinion.

    This poses a large strategic problem for the Democrats. It could be an even bigger problem for the nation.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/cliff-hanger-why-republic_b_2375052.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. The admin removes are because some asshole thinks that one of us needs a payday loan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gee, thanks, Deuce; I was just getting ready to click on that.

      Delete
  23. WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – American soldier suicides continue to outnumber combat-related deaths in 2012, and the trajectory for soldier suicides continues to get worse.

    Statistics released by the Department of the Army show that through November potentially 303 active-duty, Reserve and National Guard soldiers committed suicide. As of Dec. 7, Stars and Stripes reports that 212 soldiers have died in combat-related deaths in Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete