Global Leaders Express Concern Over Arizona’s New Immigration Law

[cal04]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/24/arizona-international-response/

Last week, following Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s speech before Congress, many conservatives blasted Calderon for slamming Arizona’s new immigration law and “meddling” in U.S. politics. “It’s about us. It’s about our citizenry,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “I just think that’s a line I would prefer that he did not cross. He went farther than I’m comfortable with,” stated Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). A statement released by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) read, “It’s unfortunate and disappointing the president of Mexico chose to criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue during a trip that was meant to reaffirm the unique relationship between our two countries.” However, Calderon isn’t the first international figure to voice his concerns over the law. In fact, he joins a loud chorus of global leaders who have criticized the drastic measures that Arizona is taking to lock out undocumented immigrants:

CENTRAL AMERICA: The Guatemalan Foreign Ministry issued a press release soon after Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB-1070 into law, deploring the measure and expressing the government’s “deep concern” for the threat it represents to basic justice. The new government of Honduras also condemned the law. “Honduras considers that the passing of the law is the wrong step and does nothing to resolve the core problems behind of illegal immigration,” said Minister of the Presidency María Antonieta Guillén. Officials in El Salvador urged its citizens to avoid traveling to Arizona, and in Nicaragua, officials called on the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN) “to take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights of the Hispanic population.”

SOUTH AMERICA: The Chilean Secretary of OAS, José Miguel Insulza, responded to Nicaragua’s request by expressing “the concern of the OAS, its Secretary General, the countries of the hemisphere and the Latin American community with the passage of a law in a state of the United States that we consider to be discriminatory against immigrants, and in particular against a population of such origin that lives in this country.” Heads of state and foreign ministers of the 12-member Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) slammed SB-1070, stating that it encourages “discretional detention of people based on racial, ethnic, phenotypic, language and migratory status reasons under the questionable concept of ‘reasonable doubt.’”

EUROPE: After reviewing the law, UN experts based in Geneva, Switzerland stated that SB-1070 could violate international standards that are binding in the United States. “A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin,” the experts said. Amnesty International, whose headquarters is based in London, agreed, calling the law “cruel and misguided” and in violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

AFRICA: South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has been an outspoken critic of Arizona’s immigration law. “Abominations such as apartheid do not start with an entire population suddenly becoming inhumane. They start here. They start with generalizing unwanted characteristics across an entire segment of a population,” wrote Tutu. “A solution that degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution.”

When it comes down to it, Arizonans may not care about what the international community has to say about its controversial new law, but global leaders have every right to care about what might happen to their countrymen and woman who visit, live, or travel through their state. In the end, it’s not meddling, it’s diplomacy with a stick.

[mynameiswhat]

1. While I agree with them and dislike the law myself

I dont think other countries should care about U.S. Domestic law.

[SargeUNN]

2. It does affect other nations in that

should their citizens, especially those who fit the stereotype this law implies,visiting here, certainly have a legitimate concern and I see no reason why they should not care. I live in Arizona and I certainly appreciate their speaking out. We need to show how bad this law is and since the powers that be here refuse to discuss the law beyond their accepted circle (see the thread I posted http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8407911 ) and when finally asked for answers fail to be able to give them. I certainly worry how this law is going to play out. Give also the track record of failure of such type laws, I welcome all attempts to rid us of this law and any other of such a nature.

[oneshooter]

3. I wonder how many have actually read the law in question. Have you? n/t

[SargeUNN]

4. Yes indeed I have and also

I have found out that the guy who introduced a like bill that passed in Prince William County Va. had read it as well. He remarked on the way it was like the law there that had to be rewritten because of the harm it had it done. Now I have to ask in return have you read it? Have you talked to anyone who has done research on it as well? I have and do.

[mynameiswhat]

5. I have read the Law and printed it out in case i talk to someone about it i can quote the law

and show them where i found my info.

[SargeUNN]

6. obviously you realize as well

as a friend of mine who was a Judge pointed out to me. There are 2 parts to any law, the spirit of the law as it was meant to be and the application of that law as it is enforced and used in the courts. Often they become two different things.

[mynameiswhat]

7. Ohh i realize that.

I'm going to school to become a police officer and am taking a policy class right now and see that there are many laws that are enforced differently than intended when they were written.

[SargeUNN]

8. ok now take this into account

You have a sheriff that has a reputation of profiling so well known that he is being investigated by the Justice Dept. and FBI, add in his refusal to abide by ruling of courts on several occassions, what do you expect will happen with such a law officer as Arpaio given the limits of reasonable suspecion? I asked a cop here in Phoenix what reasonable suspecion was and his answer was, " I have a mind that can reason, and I can suspect anything."

[mynameiswhat]

9. I think that the sheriff in question would profile and others might, but not all officers

are assholes.

[SargeUNN]

10. it goes beyond just Arpaio though

You have the Penal County Sheriff who would use it and profile, many sheriffs here in Az. will especially considering the part that allows for lawsuits if it is felt the law enforcement dept. is not enforcing this law. The Sheriff in San Cruz Co. doesn't like this law, and the Pima Co. Sheriff said he would chance the lawsuits and not change what he is doing because he feels there is no way to enforce it without profiling. If you go back and study the situation from Prince William Co. Va. and the history of a very similiar bill you will see the cheif of police there didn't like that bill and it had "probable cause" instead of "reasonable suspecion" because it was too easy to resort to profiling. The term "probable cause" was eventually removed because as the law went into effect profiling was happening even though the police tried to follow the law and avoid profiling. If you really want to learn more I suggest go to youtube search for 9500 Liberty which has many videos that are taken directly from the events as they occurred.