Visit our website:
Foreign News Report

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) extracts and condenses the material that follows from Mexican and Central and South American on-line media sources on a daily basis. You are free to disseminate this information, but we request that you credit NAFBPO as being the provider.

To subscribe, click here

Cambio de Michoacán (Morelia, Michoacán) 6-28-10

 Several civil organizations are planning a march on July 17th in support of undocumented people in the USA and to support Mexican authorities who have come out against Arizona’s SB-1070.

 This mobilization was called by the leader of a group called Sexual Diversity in Michoacán, Gerardo Herrera Perez, who wants to show support for the undocumented immigrants who have suffered suppression and violations of their human rights by the xenophobic actions and discriminatory practices caused by Arizona’s SB-1070.

 In a like manner, Herrera would like to throw support behind the diplomatic efforts of local and federal authorities to bring about migratory reform critical to benefit the migrants and, according to Herrera Perez, this initiative goes against American values.

 The group, Sexual Diversity in Michoacán, says that the controversial SB-1070, scheduled to go into full force on July 29th, criminalizes the presence of undocumented immigrants and turns local police into immigration agents.  The Sexual Diversity in Michoacán Group is structuring itself into a civil organization supporting its nationals abroad and to support Mexican authorities who are making diplomatic efforts to overturn SB-1070.

– – – – –

 The North American Supreme Court to review Arizona Law

On Monday the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to enter the national debate concerning immigrants without papers and agreed to consider an injunction requested by a group of businessmen and civil rights organizations who are against an Arizona law that punishes businessmen who employ undocumented people.

 The Justices agreed to hear an appeal by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that had failed in lower courts that had reviewed the Arizona law.

 The legislation required businesses to verify the employment eligibility of potential employees with a federal data bank called E-Verify.  The law also allows sanctions against companies that knowingly hire the undocumented.

The then Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, signed the law in 2007.  Napolitano is now the current Secretary of Homeland Security.

 This law is different from the one recently approved in Arizona that promotes the removal of undocumented people from Arizona which is considered by many to be unconstitutional.

 In this case to be reviewed by the High Court, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the ACLU charge that the State of Arizona and other states that have enacted similar laws have overstepped their authority. They (The U.S. Chamber and the ACLU) contend that only the U.S. Congress may legislate immigration matters.

 President Barack Obama has taken the side of the petitioners – that immigration matters cannot be addressed at the state level.

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in San Francisco, has held the Arizona law to be constitutional.

 The Federal E-Verify System was created in 1996 but was meant to be voluntary.

 This matter will be presented before the Supreme Court session beginning in October of this year.  The case is identified as Chamber of Commerce vs. Candelaria, 095


 Correo (Leon, Guanajuato) 6-28-10

 White House plans to “Wreak” SB-1070  

 This week the White house will directly confront SB-1070 by asking the Federal Court to block the enforcement of the Arizona law.

 The Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, is prepared for the confrontation with the Federal Government, by establishing a fund that has collected $123,000 in donations to defend the new law.

 Spokesmen for the White House appeared before the ABC Television Network on Sunday and said that they expect to ask the court for an injunction within the next few days.  Different White House sources in the past few days have indicated that an injunction will be requested but declined to give a time frame.

 In taking a stand against the Arizona law, the Obama Administration seeks to establish a political and legal position that immigration law is strictly a federal function.  Obama has characterized the Arizona as “not well thought out” and that criminal action against illegal immigrants is not a solution to the dysfunctional immigration system of the country.

 Until now the Obama Administration has not revealed the basis of its arguments from the Department of Justice concerning the controversial law that makes criminals out of the undocumented under state law.

 The invocation of SB-1070 is unconstitutional and should be the sole authority of the Federal Government to apply immigration laws and to require local authorities to question persons about their immigration status.  Beside that, the federal government considers the law to be racial profiling against legal residents of the state of Arizona.

 Since its passage last 23rd of April, SB-1070 has prompted six civil rights organizations to file cases before the federal court in Arizona.

 Governor Jan Brewer has hired lawyer John Bouma, Director of the Phoenix legal firm Snell and Wilmer, to represent Arizona in the defense of the law.  Bouma has asked the court to throw out some of the cases, but as of now, none of the arguments for or against have been heard by the court.


Other lead stories in Correo

  • “PRI” Party Candidate for Governor of Tamaulipas murdered in Tamaulipas
  •  Son of former Governor of Nuevo Leon Captured
  •  Two executed men found in Sinaloa
  •  Nine murdered in Sinaloa, two were women


-end of report-


  1. Bernina Delgado-Uriarte Says:

    I have a question that has been bothering me the last few months.
    When does ANY country have the legal right to file legal documents against a State of another Independent Nation? Arizona is NOT encroaching on Mexico’s laws, nor penalizing the legal residents residing in Mexico.
    And, if it is indeed legal, why aren’t we as Arizonans, suing Mexico for destruction of property, costs for Border Patrol, sheriffs, and other Law enforcement, court and incarceration costs, reparations for victims of Mexican IA’s, hospitalization and treatment, education, the “Fence”, the Black Hawks from Davis Motham,………..the list goes on.
    Can anyone answer this for me?

    • Donald H Says:

      I believe your answer lies in the separation of powers between the states and the federal government. It is the responsibility of the federal government to deal with foreign powers. All the Mexican government can do in this case is file what is called a Friend of the Court brief. Mexico is not a litigant. Arizona is at the mercy of the federal government. What enrages me is that the federal government has not shown the ability to enforce the border or to remove illegal aliens from the U.S. workforce, and then the feds turn around and sue a state for enacting enforcement laws, subject to the federal laws, in order to help out the feds with immigration enforcement.
      It makes no sense, unless the feds have cut a deal with Mexico that has not been made public. Something stinks in Washington.

      • Bernina Delgado-Uriarte Says:

        So………call this grasping at straws:
        Why can’t Arizona sue the Federal Government for not enforcing the current Federal Immigration Law?

        I do know that just the signing of SB1070 has incredibly decreased the amount of IAs and their camps in Yavapai county. I have friends with poultry and livestock operations around the county and their losses, from theft and poaching, have almost completely ceased. There has also been an incredible increase in the Highway Patrol presence, on HWY 89, from Prescott to Ashfork, a known “safer” route for smugglers.

        Yes, I believe something has been in the works with Mexico and Washington, since NAFTA to the present. Are we, pray tell, talking oil and/or drugs perchance? I say “Follow the money”.

      • Donald H Says:

        Arizona and other states will not sue the federal government over immigration non-enforcement because the federal government does just enough enforcing to make a case against them futile. This principle is used throughout the political spectrum, do just enough to placate, but not enough to alienate.
        I agree. “Follow the money” and follow the food chain, too. The U.S. does not produce enough of the varieties of food we have grown accustomed to having. Our population is increasing while our farmland is decreasing. Mexico produces a lot of our food these days. NAFTA seems to be the root of the Mexican migration ideology, the free trade of goods and services (interpreted as migratory labor free access). I still don’t know why the federal government did not address the migration issue when the NAFTA agreement was being discussed. But then, it’s easier to just look the other way, a wink and a nod, and let things continue on until someone notices. Just short term, dumb politics that is ruining this country.

  2. Donald H Says:

    Checks should be made out to:
    Governor’s Border Security & Immigration Legal Defense Fund

    and can be mailed to:

    Office of the Governor
    1700 W. Washington St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85007

    This is per my email to the AZ Governor’s web page.

  3. Mike Says:

    Where can I contribute to Arizona’s legal defense fund for SB-1070?

  4. Donald H Says:

    The Mexicans fail to understand the scope of state laws and federal laws. The Arizona law does not regulate immigration. It is a misnomer to call it an immigration law. The Arizona law is merely a state law supporting federal ENFORCEMENT of federal immigration law. The states have the right to enforce a federal law within their respective statutes. That right is granted by our Constitution. It will be interesting to learn how the Supreme Court handles this one. The other issue is the states’ right to regulate businesses within the respective states, i.e. requiring the use of E-verify. That is also Constitutional. I don’t see how the federal government has any standing on these two issues that they are challenging in the Supreme Court.

  5. donaldC Says:

    This activist group known as “sexual Diversity in Michoacan” talks ,walks and looks like a front organization for the narco cartel “La Familia Michoacana”, a crime org. made up of only Michoacanese. This narco-terrorist group is one of the most vicious of the narco-trafficker crime syndicates in Mexico. According to the FBI it is a unique crime org. in that it is an integral part of the political, social-economic fabric of that Mexican state. The name of this advocacy group is puzzling in itself but decrying “human rights” violations in the USA while at the same time being a major player in the drug smuggling and criminality that infests the USA and Mexico.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: