Mexico Motion Against Arizona - in Plain English

A Plain English Document Translation Company
Definition for each icon you may see in your document Action
Alert! Unclear. Bring this specific section to the attention of your attorney or document author for clarification
Clear. No further clerical assistance needed.
Plain English applied here.
This legend defines symbols found throughout your plain English document.
DISCLAIMER
By accepting this document, you’re stating you understand UnlockDocs is strictly a clerical
service, and does not provide a legal interpretation of your document. This Plain English Guide
in no way supersedes the information in your original document, or replaces the value that only
an attorney or document author can provide. You are strongly advised to seek counsel from a
professional, whether attorney, licensed agent, or other document author, for further
clarification. If any conflicts appear between words or phrases, your original document and
attorney or document author prevails, and remains your ultimate authority.
Page 1 of 21
PEG_Mexico Motion Against Arizona Bill 062210
Copyright © 2009 UNLOCKDOCS.COM. All rights reserved. Patent Pending
* Motion/MEXICO MOTION AGAINST ARIZONA BILL* Action
The United Mexican States (Mexico) files this brief as amicus curiae [“friend of the court”].
[Mexico may file a motion in a US court if the outcome of an action will affect Mexico.]
Page 2 of 21
Mexico has two significant interests in Arizona’s recent actions.
1. That the relationship between Mexico and the US isn’t compromised by the actions of an
individual state;
2. That Mexican citizens aren’t denied human and civil rights while in the United States.
Specifically, Mexico wants to protect its citizens from state-sanctioned discrimination.
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

(Friend of the Court)
Mexico submits this brief to express concern over the Arizona Immigration Bill, SB 1070, and to
emphasize the need to declare it unconstitutional.
Mexico wants to be sure diplomatic relations with the US aren’t frustrated by Arizona’s actions.
SB 1070 opens the door to different rules among different states regarding national government
issues, creating a lack of consistency between the US and Mexico.
Page 3 of 21
Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which both our countries have signed,
Mexico has a right to protect the interests of its nationals within the limits of international law.
Mexico is concerned its citizens will be denied human and civil rights while in the US due to an
unbalanced application of laws from state to state. Mexico wants assurances that ethnicity
won’t be used as a basis for state-sanctioned acts of discrimination.
Not only does SB 1070 threaten individuals, but in a broader sense, it undermines Mexico-US
relations.
Mexico has followed SB 1070 closely. The issues we raise in this motion are very important to
the Mexican people. When we say, “Mexican people,” we include:
1. Nearly 20,000,000 Mexican workers, tourists, and students who were lawfully admitted
to the US in 2009
2. Those already present in the US, or who will be admitted to the US in the future
3. The countless millions affected by international trade, immigration policies, and drug
violence
Page 4 of 21
Mexico suggests that SB 1070 adversely impacts relations between Mexico and the US, as well as
law-abiding Mexican citizens and people of Latin-American descent in Arizona today.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
By passing SB 1070, Arizona severs itself from the uniform immigration policy of the US in order
to force its own laws. This conflict interferes with economic, immigration, and security policies
between Mexico and the US. Therefore, SB 1070 challenges diplomatic relations between
Mexico and the US.
Also, Mexico is seriously concerned that this will lead to different treatment of Mexican
nationals in the US, by:
1. Racial profiling
2. Detaining Mexican citizens even if they have done nothing to indicate a crime
3. Detaining Mexican citizens even if they have done nothing to indicate they’re in the US
illegally
Page 5 of 21
ARGUMENT
I. SB 1070 Impedes International Relations;
There Needs to Be one Cohesive, Consistent, and Controlling US Voice
“The Federal Government represents the interests of all fifty states, and is exclusively
responsible for international relations.” [Paraphrased: Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 63 (1941)]
Through SB 1070, Arizona puts forth its own independent rules. This is in conflict with federal
immigration law, which specifically allows Arizona to assist with enforcement after receiving
approval and training to ensure constitutionality.
By Arizona taking this action alone, it forces Mexico’s officials and citizens to respond to
differing rules led by different divisions of the US government.
In order for diplomatic relations with the US to be successful, Mexico needs and depends on
clear, consistent, two-sided negotiations. We can’t work together on immigration, trade, and
security effectively if US divisions conflict not only with each other, but with commitments made
by the US federal government.
Page 6 of 21
SB 1070 directly affects US relations with foreign countries. As conveyed by US Secretary of

State Hillary Clinton, although not in effect yet, it’s already straining US-Mexico relations.
Mexico’s ambassador to the US, Arturo Sarukhan, explains that SB 1070 “Threatens to poison
the well from which our two nations have found, and should continue to find, inspiration for a
joint future of prosperity, security, tolerance and justice.”
A. SB 1070 Will Severely Hinder Trade

and Tourism Between Mexico and Arizona
An area of great concern to Mexico is trade and commercial relations with the US.
Page 7 of 21
1. Growth in US trade with Latin America historically outpaces other regions.
2. Mexico is the 3rd largest trading partner of the US.
3. Mexico is the 2nd largest purchaser of US exports.
4. Labor markets, tourism, business travel, and student migration between the two
countries is extensive and important to both economies.
5. A University of California study shows between 1990-2006 immigration boosted the

US economy, resulting in a 2.86% real wage increase for the average US worker.
6. Each day approximately 65,000 Mexicans are admitted into Arizona, and each day
they spend $7.35 million in retail, restaurants, hotels, and other businesses.
SB 1070 poses a threat to this mutually beneficial trade between us. As detailed in Section II, if
SB 1070 takes effect Mexican citizens won’t visit Arizona for work or tourism out of concern
they’ll be subject to unlawful police scrutiny and detention.
Page 8 of 21
In the past, the US and Mexico negotiated and practiced free trade which resulted in highly
beneficial economic relationships (for example, NAFTA). Diplomacy is crucial to these
negotiations.
SB 1070 halts cooperation by driving “nations that work together and trade,” to “mutual
recrimination [finger-pointing], which has been so useless and damaging in previous times.”
[Remarks by President Calderon of Mexico at Official Arrival Ceremony on May 19, 2010].
Strained diplomatic ties prevent Mexico and the US from working together to develop and
maintain commercial relations, which is critical to their economies.
B. SB 1070 Derails Efforts Towards

Comprehensive Immigration Reform
With over 11,000,000 nationals in the US, Mexico has a significant interest in US immigration
reform. The US is equally interested in Mexico’s involvement. In fact, 1 of the 5 immigration
principles of the Obama administration is to collaborate with Mexico.
Page 9 of 21
President Obama met with the president of Mexico on May 19, 2010. They discussed
immigration.
1. Obama acknowledged both countries have to address the issue.
2. Obama noted Mexico’s effort to create jobs and US efforts to “fix our broken
immigration system.”
3. Both said they believe SB 1070 is a misdirected effort to address immigration issues.
4. They agreed the two federal governments have to work together to ensure immigration
reform doesn’t have an adverse effect on border region economies.
The effects immigration has on labor markets, tourism, business travel, and education are
greatly important to both countries.
Mexican citizens made up the highest percentage (12%) of the 163 million visitors legally
admitted into the US in 2009 as tourists, business travelers, workers and students.
Both countries profit from intellectual exchange.
Immigration policy is crucial to communities along the 2,000 mile US-Mexico border.
Border areas are also highly susceptible to drug-related violence. Law enforcement policies are
critical.
Page 10 of 21
It’s critical to:
1. Recognize the importance of securing and managing the legal flow of goods, services,
and people between Mexico and the US;
2. Understand joint administration of our common border is critical to managing security

and efficiency;
3. Understand law enforcement coordination is essential to preventing and busting

transnational crime rings.
[Paraphrased: From the May 19, 2010 press release, The White House, Declaration by the government of the United
States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning Twenty-First Century Border
Management]
Page 11 of 21
C. SB 1070 Obstructs International Collaboration

To Combat Drug Trafficking Organizations and Drug-Related Violence
For over 30 years, the war against drug-trafficking organizations has been a critical issue for US
and Latin American governments. Recently, Mexican drug-trafficking has taken the spotlight.
1. 7,000 people were killed by drug-related violence in Mexico in the past year.
2. 31% of the deaths took place in the border State of Chihuahua.
3. Current and previous US administrations acknowledged a shared responsibility for drug-

related violence, and determined “it is absolutely critical that the United States joins as a
full partner in dealing with this issue.”
4. Numerous scholars point out: “Without changes in US drug policy, efforts to combat
DTOs [drug-trafficking organizations] or to address Mexico’s own growing domestic
demand for drugs will be futile.”
On October 22, 2007 the Merida Initiative was announced after extensive negotiations between
the US and Mexico. This is a training and equipment package meant to strengthen counter-
narcotic efforts of both governments.
Cooperation under the Merida Initiative has made great strides. Because of it:
Page 12 of 21
1. The US and Mexico have made over 1,000 arrests, including top members of multiple
drug-trafficking organizations
2. Intelligence-sharing has improved
3. Weapon tracing and cash seizure initiatives have been strengthened
As the US and Mexico build trust and cooperation in their fight to stop drug-trafficking and
related violence, SB 1070 threatens these efforts. Not only this, but SB 1070 raises the risk of
reduced crime-reporting in Arizona, including by Mexican nationals. This impedes law
enforcement’s efforts to make arrests and seizures on both sides of the border.
Former President Bush’s opinion that the US can’t commit to projects alone, is shared on both
sides of the border. Mexico equally can’t negotiate in good faith with the US without the
assurance that efforts won’t be hindered by opposing political subdivisions. This is especially
concerning in border states like Arizona, which play a significant role in controlling weapons
traffic into Mexico.
Page 13 of 21
“The interests of the people of the US as a whole, requires that federal power affecting foreign
relations be completely free of local interference.” [Paraphrased: Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 at 63]
Along these lines, James Madison said, “If we are to be one nation in any respect, it clearly ought
to be in respect to other nations.”
As a foreign nation, Mexico has a compelling interest in:
1. Maintaining two-sided relations based on respect for the constitutional law of the US
2. The cancellation of SB 1070
II. Mexico Has a Legitimate Interest

Protecting Its Citizens’ Rights Under the US Constitution
History has shown that state-sanctioned actions, like SB 1070, violate the US Constitution’s basic
doctrine, which guarantees freedom, liberty and equal protection of the law. Government
actions against minority populations considered to be a threat were unfounded. The actions
taken toward African-Americans during the Civil Rights movement stress the potentially harmful
and lasting negative effects of SB 1070.
Page 14 of 21
Discriminatory legal enforcement has adverse legal, social, economic, and political implications.
This is why Mexico is determined to ensure its citizens are protected under the US Constitution,
and not subjected to hostile attitudes or action by US society.
As of 2008, there were 11.4 million Mexican-born individuals living in the US.
5.4% of them live in Arizona.
In the year 2000, the 9th Circuit acknowledged that, “The Hispanic population of the Southwest
and Far West in particular, has grown enormously – at least five-fold in the four border states
[Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas].” [Paraphrased.]
In fact, recent demographic reports show minorities represent more than 50% of the population
in Hawaii, New Mexico, California and Texas, making race and ethnicity an impractical tool in
law enforcement.
Page 15 of 21
The 9th Circuit also noted that there have been “significant changes in the law restricting the use
of race in government decision-making.” The court concluded that the “use of race and ethnicity
has been severely limited.” [Paraphrased.]
The Court went on to speak about border check stops.
“At this point in history, given the evolution of our ethnic and racial composition, Hispanic
appearance is, in general, of such little value that it can’t be considered as a relevant factor in
determining who should be stopped by law enforcement officials when on the lookout for illegal
aliens.” [Paraphrased.]
Page 16 of 21
Public speeches by the Arizona Governor and other state officials, together with ARS Section 11-
1051(B) [Arizona Revised Statutes regarding enforcement of immigration laws], give the impression that
there is US and Arizona Constitutional support for using race and ethnicity.
Mexico is rightfully concerned for the civil rights of its citizens in Arizona.
Until as late as 2000, as shown in USA v. Montero-Camargo, US Border Patrol agents used
Hispanic appearance as the only basis to stop Hispanics for immigration purposes, even though
this wasn’t permitted.
A. SB 1070’s Results in
Racial Profiling, Reminiscent of African-American Discrimination
SB 1070 gives local officers carte blanche authority to stereotype and rely on popular perception
of “foreign-ness” to justify unequal treatment.
“Negative stereotypes are spread even further because profiling prompts more investigations,
which results in more arrests, and more convictions of members of the targeted group.”
[Paraphrased: See John Dwight Ingram, racial and Ethnic Profiling, 29 T. Marshall L. Rev 55, 76 (2003).]
Commentators note that immigration enforcement in the Southwest regularly disgraces US

citizens and lawful immigrants of Mexican ancestry. This isn’t the case with the white, non-
Hispanic population.
Page 17 of 21
Mexico is justifiably concerned that law enforcement will use stereotypes and prejudice as state-
sanctioned. When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was asked what criteria will be used as
reasonable suspicion of a person’s legal status in the US, she focused on the physical appearance
of “illegal immigrants,” stating:
“I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I can tell you that there are people in
Arizona that assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I don’t know if they know
that for a fact or not, but I know that if AZPosts [Arizona Peace Officers] gets themselves
together, works on this law, puts down the description that the law will be enforced civilly, fairly
and without discriminatory points to it.” [CNN Wire Staff, Arizona Governor signs Immigration Bill, CNN,
Apr. 24, 2010]
Giving state police the authority to simply create a description of what an illegal immigrant looks
like is plainly racial profiling, which is why Mexico is concerned. This inevitably will lead to
casting an overbroad net in the pursuit of “illegal immigrants,” with individuals being stopped
based on appearance.
Page 18 of 21
This unfair targeting of Hispanics and Latin-Americans in immigration enforcement is similar to

targeting young African-American males in criminal law enforcement. One federal judge
compared the dangers of racial profiling in border patrol enforcement, to the experience of
driving while black:
“How is this different from the former practice in the South where peace officers would
randomly stop black pedestrians to inquire, ‘Hey, boy, what are you doin’ in this
neighborhood?’” [Paraphrased: United States v. Zapata-Ibarra, 223 F.3d 281, 285 (5th Cir. 2000)]
B. SB 1070’s Harmful Effects Lead to Dangerous Harms Spanning

From Physical Violence to Promotion of Negative, Ill-Conceived Stereotypes
Finally, Mexico needs to protect its people. SB 1070 endangers this goal, as demonstrated by
the following:
1. New York City’s mistaken shooting deaths of two black men, Amadou Diallo and
Sean Bell
2. New York City’s brutal torture of a third black man, Abner Louima
Page 19 of 21
One small mishap of racial profiling by law enforcement, can lead to public outcry and distrust of
law enforcement by local communities.
Additionally, racial profiling by law enforcement may encourage private organizations or citizens
to target Mexican citizens. Armed ranchers in Douglas, Arizona used unjustified force to arrest
Hispanic persons crossing their land. [Smita P. Nordwall & Elliot Blair Smith, Mexico Threatens to Sue Arizona
Ranchers, USA Today, May 3, 2000 at 19A]
Second, SB 1070 promotes negative, ill-conceived stereotypes about “Mexican appearance.” It

gives untrained local officials the authority to define “Mexican appearance.” By permitting the
detaining and questioning of Hispanics or Latin Americans that look like “illegal aliens,” the bill
creates a social and political hotbed for further acts of discrimination and exclusion.
Although most persons of Mexican ancestry are of dark complexion with black hair, many are
blond, blue-eyed and ‘white,’ while others have red hair and hazel eyes.
Furthermore, when aligned with other drastic measures, such as the recent bill banning
multicultural studies in the Tucson Unified School District, Arizona’s legislative efforts
undeniably constitute a discriminatory policy. SB 1070 runs against the fundamental rights of
people living in the US.
Page 20 of 21
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we ask that this Court declare SB 1070 unconstitutional in its entirety.
END
Page 21 of 21

Mexico Motion Against Arizona - in Plain English

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mexico Motion Against Arizona - in Plain English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Plain English Document Translation Company

Clear. No further clerical assistance needed.

Plain English applied here.

Mexico has two significant interests in Arizona’s recent actions.

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

SB 1070 directly affects US relations with foreign countries. As conveyed by US Secretary of

A. SB 1070 Will Severely Hinder Trade

1. Growth in US trade with Latin America historically outpaces other regions.

2. Mexico is the 3rd largest trading partner of the US.

3. Mexico is the 2nd largest purchaser of US exports.

5. A University of California study shows between 1990-2006 immigration boosted the

B. SB 1070 Derails Efforts Towards

1. Obama acknowledged both countries have to address the issue.

Both countries profit from intellectual exchange.

It’s critical to:

2. Understand joint administration of our common border is critical to managing security

3. Understand law enforcement coordination is essential to preventing and busting

C. SB 1070 Obstructs International Collaboration

2. 31% of the deaths took place in the border State of Chihuahua.

3. Current and previous US administrations acknowledged a shared responsibility for drug-

2. Intelligence-sharing has improved

3. Weapon tracing and cash seizure initiatives have been strengthened

As a foreign nation, Mexico has a compelling interest in:

II. Mexico Has a Legitimate Interest

5.4% of them live in Arizona.

The Court went on to speak about border check stops.

Commentators note that immigration enforcement in the Southwest regularly disgraces US

This unfair targeting of Hispanics and Latin-Americans in immigration enforcement is similar to

B. SB 1070’s Harmful Effects Lead to Dangerous Harms Spanning

Second, SB 1070 promotes negative, ill-conceived stereotypes about “Mexican appearance.” It

You might also like