Immigration and Legal Groups Rebuff Mexican Lawsuit Threat

Since 05-18-06

By Jeff Johnson

CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 18, 2006

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200605/NAT20060518b.html

(CNSNews.com) - The Mexican government is threatening to sue the U.S. government in response to President Bush's pledge to deploy National Guard troops along the U.S. border, according to an online opinion column.

An immigration reform group responded Wednesday, saying that Mexico should stay out of U.S. domestic policy; and a legal advocacy group said the Mexican government was more likely to secretly fund lawsuits by individual illegal aliens than to challenge the U.S. directly.

Jim Kouri, a security expert and staff writer for TheRealityCheck.org, warned in a column that the Bush administration could face a federal lawsuit over its plan to use National Guard troops to supplement Border Patrol agents.

"A representative from Mexican President Vicente Fox claims that if the U.S. National Guard troops detain illegal aliens crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, the Fox government will file a lawsuit against the Bush Administration in U.S. federal court," Kouri wrote. "There are some political observers who believe that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is preparing to assist the Mexican government in such a lawsuit."

Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), told Cybercast News Service that the Mexican government should mind its own business.

"The United States needs to make it clear to Mexico and to every foreign government, that our immigration policy is a domestic matter and that we're not going to tolerate interference by foreign governments," Mehlman said. "No country has the right to dictate or make demands when it comes to the domestic policies of the United States, just as we have no right to dictate their policies."

Tom Fitton, president of the public advocacy law firm Judicial Watch, said it is one thing to threaten a lawsuit and quite another to actually pursue one in court.

"We all say we want to sue. The question is: 'Can they? And, is there standing?'" Fitton said. "It would be, more likely, a diplomatic issue at that level."

Mehlman agreed. "I would doubt that [Mexico] has legal standing, but you never know what kind of creative decisions the courts can come up with or what the ACLU might try," Mehlman said.

"There's no historical or legal basis for standing when it comes to foreign governments suing the United States over its immigration policies. I'm not even sure that it's a case that could be taken before the World Court, much less a court here in the United States."

Fitton believes that "it's highly unlikely that the government of Mexico would sue directly over the deployment of the National Guard.

"It's more likely that Mexican nationals would receive legal support, paid for by the Mexican government, if they challenged their detention by the National Guard, or any other new border enforcement that Mexico wants to challenge," Fitton explained.

"The way Mexican government works is, they fund legal representation for the illegal immigrant community on some of these matters and that's the likely vehicle for any challenges, if there are any here."

This is not the first time, according to FAIR, that a Mexican official has reportedly threatened a lawsuit against the U.S. government or one of its citizens.

"Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez has threatened the U.S. government and individual U.S. citizens with various lawsuits," FAIR reported. "When Arizona citizens approved Proposition 200 in November 2004, restricting access to state benefits for illegal aliens, Derbez threatened to sue the State of Arizona in U.S. District Court, disregarding the necessary legal standing."

Additionally, Derbez threatened to bring legal action against the neighborhood watch-style group known as the Minutemen Project when they began patrolling the southern U.S. border earlier this year.

ACLU criticizes Bush in advance for actions he did not propose

The ACLU published a press release before President Bush's announcement on May 15th, calling on Congress and the president "to reject any measures that fail to uphold the letter and spirit of our laws and encourag[ing] lawmakers to adopt immigration reform that protects the freedom and privacy of all in America.

"Turning immigration enforcement policy into another military operation is not the answer," the ACLU wrote. "The president's proposed deployment of National Guard troops violates the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from getting into the business of civilian law enforcement."

The Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) does prohibit military involvement in civilian law enforcement, "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress."

An analysis of the law by the U.S. Coast Guard notes that in 1981, a companion law was enacted "clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States.

Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of [Department of Defense] personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests)."

During his presentation Monday night, President Bush seemed to preempt the ACLU's complaint, calling for 6,000 National Guard members to be deployed along the southern U.S. border, "in coordination with governors."

"The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol roads and providing training," Bush said.

"Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities -- that duty will be done by the Border Patrol."