This is just... unbelievable. Surely the courts will not allow this!

[Mayhem]

From Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer slams 'foreign interference' in immigration lawsuit - Scott Wong - POLITICO.com

In a new twist in the fight over Arizona’s immigration law, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday asked a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit to overturn the law.


The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.

Who gives a rat's a$$ what any other country thinks about state policies? I guarantee the people of these counties would be outraged if we pulled this crap.

​

 

[ElasticNinja]

The thing is, the US regularly interferes with many of them, its just you choose to not notive/care

 

[zauper]

What exactly are you upset about? That other countries are submitting briefs? Or the content of the case?

Other countries regularly submit briefs. Particularly on issues of international law (hey look, that's immigration) trade, etc.

There was a torture victims protection act case in the 2nd circuit in which the UK, switzerland, south africa, and several other countries submitted briefs.

For example.

Briefs can be submitted by anyone, really. (depends on the rules of the court, but you get my point).

Sure, it LOOKS bad because it's countries in Latin America that the law is essentially targeting that are commenting. That doesn't make it "against the rules", or anything similar. Amicus briefs don't exactly hold much sway, generally, anyways.

 

[Frisco]

Great post, Zauper.

 

[Isthmus]

You do know that countries and states submit friend of the court briefs all the time right. Not only that, but individual US states also support foreign trade missions for their states in other countries (such as several of the countries mentioned on this list). By this logic, should these countries expel the individual missions of these states and route everything to the US embassies and consulates?

A friend of the court brief doe not necessarily mean that the party filing it has any legal say in the matter, but it can serve to flesh out a topic being argued by the court.

 

[Crude]

Seems to me that briefs are intended to influence a decision. On that note you should have to be a citizen to submit a brief.

 

[Vihzel]

Seems to me that briefs are intended to influence a decision. On that note you should have to be a citizen to submit a brief.

When dealing with international laws even?

 

[copestag]

the courts deal with all manner of cases including international law..... I dont think citizenship should be a requirement to filing an opinion brief in a case....

however..... a vested interest should be...... and in this case (which has nothing to do with international or even national law for that matter)....... these foreign govts have no vested interest or business getting involved.....

what exactly could their briefs offer by way of opinion?... 'we as foreign countries who enjoy the fact that your country allows our citizens to break your laws, would appreciate if you prevent anyone from creating and enforcing any new laws which would prevent us from crossing your border illegaly'

and before anyone argues that they have an interest because the law concerns people from their nations....... bare in mind... the law concerns criminal activity by people from their nations....... so the only interest they could possibly have is to condone criminal activity..... regardless of whether it is Arizona law or US law

 

[Isthmus]

You guys do know that the reverse also applies, we often use foreign laws as precedent for our own legal decisions when local precedents are unavailable or in conflict. How is this any different?

 

[_J.J._]

3rd world country's opinions should get 3rd world consideration

 

[byteware]

You guys do know that the reverse also applies, we often use foreign laws as precedent for our own legal decisions when local precedents are unavailable or in conflict. How is this any different?

If I'm reading your statement right, that's an utterly ridiculous statement.

Foreign laws have no use in legal decisions made by our judicial system.

That's not to say that judges have never mentioned them in their written decisions, but they cannot be used as justification for a decision.

 

[Isthmus]

If I'm reading your statement right, that's an utterly ridiculous statement.

Foreign laws have no use in legal decisions made by our judicial system.

That's not to say that judges have never mentioned them in their written decisions, but they cannot be used as justification for a decision.

Then you might want to brush up on your legal history. It's been done many times and continues to be done today (though because of our much longer precedent history, it is now done with far less frequency than it once was).

 

[byteware]

Then you might want to brush up on your legal history. It's been done many times and continues to be done today (though because of our much longer precedent history, it is now done with far less frequency than it once was).

Care to back that up with proof?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Care to back that up with proof?

I wouldnt be surprised if it did before

I believe it used to happen quite often here...

 

[zauper]

Care to back that up with proof?

Yay wiki!

In the United States, stare decisis can interact in counterintuitive ways with the federal and state court systems. On an issue of federal law, a state court is not bound by an interpretation of federal law at the district or circuit level, but is bound by an interpretation by the United States Supreme Court. On an interpretation of state law, whether common law or statutory law, the federal courts are bound by the interpretation of a state court of last resort, and are required normally to defer to the precedents of intermediate state courts as well.

Courts may choose to obey precedents of international jurisdictions, but this is not an application of the doctrine of stare decisis, because foreign decisions are not binding. Rather, a foreign decision that is obeyed on the basis of the soundness of its reasoning will be called persuasive authority

 

[Bob Maxey]

OK, OK, I have the solution. At least the solution with regards to illegal criminals coming from Mexico.

The Mexicans think we treat them unfairly, so I propose a simple solution: lets take verbatim, the immigration laws and rules that govern us Gringos when we decide to go to Mexico and use them in this country.

But first, I suggest some of you look at what will happen when you violate one of their laws.

Bob "El Gringo" Maxey

 

[Crude]

You do realize this all could have been avoided...and would still go away if the federal government would do one of the things it's commanded to by the constitution? Why not protect our borders? Why can we put so much time, money and resources into fighting each other and so little in the way of providing security from outside sources?

 

[zauper]

You do realize this all could have been avoided...and would still go away if the federal government would do one of the things it's commanded to by the constitution? Why not protect our borders? Why can we put so much time, money and resources into fighting each other and so little in the way of providing security from outside sources?

What exactly does illegal immigration how to do with providing security from outside sources? Are you afraid that the illegal immigrants are going to kill you?

What time, money, and government resources do we put into "fighting each other" and what does that even mean in the context of being inside the U.S? Are you referring to this lawsuit?

How much money have we put into that, compared to say, the Secure Border Initiative (SBI)?

SBInet has cost us a mere $2B so far, (over 500% above budget!). It has another ~$1B expected in the next 6 months or so, pending a review of progress thus far (which has been slow, poor, and ineffective).

CBP personnel isn't even capable of using the high-tech SBInet infrastructure, where it exists -- and it hasn't been completed along the stretch it was supposed to be deployed. It's been under progress since 2005.

This also raises the question of how we got from a court case to a discussion on the appropriateness of illegal immigration. I'm pretty sure there's a thread for that discussion.

 

[byteware]

Yay wiki!

Let me point you to a rather important part of your quote that you seem to have overlooked.

Rather, a foreign decision that is obeyed on the basis of the soundness of its reasoning will be called persuasive authority

1) We aren't talking about foreign laws. We are talking about foreign legal decisions.

2) We aren't talking about obeying foreign legal decisions. We are talking about applying the same reasoning behind the foreign legal decisions to influence US legal decisions.

3) Being influenced by the logic behind a legal decision in another country is NOT basing your decisions on foreign laws.

If you bothered to look, here's a debate between two SC judges on the applicability of it'l law:
Full written transcript of Scalia-Breyer debate on foreign law

None of this deals with decisions being based on foreign law. It deals with Justices being aware of the reasoning behind legal decisions made in foreign countries that deal with the same issue that they are dealing with.

Honestly, this has nothing to do with foreign law, and everything to do with listening to what other justices have thought on the topic, whether they are foreign or domestic justices.

The most directly relevant stuff is probably the interpretation of treaties.

Listening to what other countries jurists think on a particular treaty is helpful, but not binding. It CAN influence a domestic jurists decision, but domestic legal decisions CANNOT be based on foreign law.

 

[byteware]

What exactly does illegal immigration how to do with providing security from outside sources? Are you afraid that the illegal immigrants are going to kill you?

Three of the 9/11 attackers were here on expired visa which would put them in the same category as illegal immigrants.

How much money have we put into that, compared to say, the Secure Border Initiative (SBI)?

SBInet has cost us a mere $2B so far, (over 500% above budget!). It has another ~$1B expected in the next 6 months or so, pending a review of progress thus far (which has been slow, poor, and ineffective).

CBP personnel isn't even capable of using the high-tech SBInet infrastructure, where it exists -- and it hasn't been completed along the stretch it was supposed to be deployed. It's been under progress since 2005.

This also raises the question of how we got from a court case to a discussion on the appropriateness of illegal immigration. I'm pretty sure there's a thread for that discussion.

Seriously, a compliment of 500 - 600 predator drones with FLIR would allow us to curtail a great deal of the traffic across the border.

Some would still get through, but a few a night is a great deal less than what we are currently seeing.

 

[zauper]

Listening to what other countries jurists think on a particular treaty is helpful, but not binding. It CAN influence a domestic jurists decision, but domestic legal decisions CANNOT be based on foreign law.

An amicus brief isn't binding, either?

What he was saying is that the SC considers other courts precedents -- those quotes prove that:

1) When you look at how another country is interpreting their laws that are similar, and look at their conditions, you're consider their precedent (explicitly or implicitly; as Breyer points out)
2) When you consider how other countries have interpreted a treaty, you are considering the precedent that their courts have set.

 

[zauper]

Three of the 9/11 attackers were here on expired visa which would put them in the same category as illegal immigrants.

And how many of them were living in Arizona? How many were suspected of having stayed past their visas? How many would have been affected by the Arizona law? How many would have been affected by the border initiatives?

None? Fantastic. Why are we having this discussion?

Seriously, a compliment of 500 - 600 predator drones with FLIR would allow us to curtail a great deal of the traffic across the border.

Some would still get through, but a few a night is a great deal less than what we are currently seeing.

Sure, we'd see less. If the worry is that people can sneak in because ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS R THREAT, any is a problem.

Also, the border with Canada isn't secure.... At all. You can swim across. If illegal immigrants are a threat, why is there no concern for that border?

Oh -- because we aren't actually trying to prevent the threat of illegal immigrants as terrorists? Instead we're just trying to deny people access, and the poor people in Mexico can't fly to Canada and then cross the border to get in any more than they can afford to fly to the U.S. and get in legally (and then stay illegally)? I'm glad we cleared that up.

Illegal immigrants are a problem because of the strain that they put on social services, but the whole to-do over it is way too overdone.

 

[Crude]

What exactly does illegal immigration how to do with providing security from outside sources? Are you afraid that the illegal immigrants are going to kill you?

There are wide swaths of land in the south west marked with warnings that it is dangerous because of our border problems.

What time, money, and government resources do we put into "fighting each other" and what does that even mean in the context of being inside the U.S? Are you referring to this lawsuit?

yes

How much money have we put into that, compared to say, the Secure Border Initiative (SBI)?

SBInet has cost us a mere $2B so far, (over 500% above budget!). It has another ~$1B expected in the next 6 months or so, pending a review of progress thus far (which has been slow, poor, and ineffective).

CBP personnel isn't even capable of using the high-tech SBInet infrastructure, where it exists -- and it hasn't been completed along the stretch it was supposed to be deployed. It's been under progress since 2005.

irrelevant, it's the job of the federal government to secure it's citizens. That's one of it's duties outlined in the constitution. How hard it that to grasp.

This also raises the question of how we got from a court case to a discussion on the appropriateness of illegal immigration. I'm pretty sure there's a thread for that discussion.

I know right? Time for twospirits to lock the thead.

 

[Slug]

Time for twospirits to lock the thead.

That should be the last resort. Better would be if the thread got back on topic.

 

[byteware]

An amicus brief isn't binding, either?

I'm not against amicus briefs.

What he was saying is that the SC considers other courts precedents -- those quotes prove that:

They aren't considering the precedent. They are consider the logic that brought them there. That's a big difference.

1) When you look at how another country is interpreting their laws that are similar, and look at their conditions, you're consider their precedent (explicitly or implicitly; as Breyer points out)

They aren't considering the decisions, but the logic that brought them to their conclusions. How they interpret certain phrases. How they interpret "public good". How decisions have effected society (i.e. government funding for religious schools).

2) When you consider how other countries have interpreted a treaty, you are considering the precedent that their courts have set.

They aren't considering the decisions made, but WHY the decisions were made.

The WHY is what is important, not the decision itself.