Now isn't that something. Mexico (Calderon) has been throwing a hissy fit because he is afraid someone might use racial profiling, even though the Arizona law specifically prohibits it. On the other hand Mexican law specifically requires racial profiling: The Mexican law states that law enforcement officials are "required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."

An estimated 50,000 people showed up on May 29 for the National Day of Action against SB-1070 in Phoenix, Ariz. Speakers included AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. The rally took place just days after the Border Patrol headquarters in Tucson was occupied by protesters. (Immigration Clearing House, June 1; Censored News, May 21)

The city of Tucson has joined a lawsuit against the the state's new immigration law, a court filing revealed June 1. Tucson was originally named as a defendant along with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in the federal lawsuit filed in April by Tucson police officer Martin Escobar. However, the city responded by filing a cross-claim against Brewer seeking an injunction to prevent enforcement of the law, which is set to go into effect July 29. The city argues that the law violates the Commerce Clause and Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. (Jurist, June 2)

The American Bar Association (ABA) on June 30 filed an amicus curiae brief urging the federal district court in Arizona to block the enforcement of the state's controversial immigration law. The brief was filed in support of a class-action lawsuit led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona legislation. According to the brief, "the ABA has long opposed initiatives such as S.B. 1070, which, by their plain language, can only be implemented by intruding on the civil rights of both citizens and non-citizens." The ABA argues that the federal government should have exclusive power [press release] over immigration issues. In addition, the brief, which was filed in the US District Court for the District of Arizona, states that the law will increase the use of racial profiling, result in unlawful and unreasonable detentions and increase the burden on the state's indigent defense system. The ABA usually waits until a case reaches the appellate level to file an amicus curiae brief, but ABA president Carolyn Lamm said this case requires "extraordinary action." The law is set to go into effect in January 2011.

Last week, the Mexican government filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the ACLU suit, claiming a substantial interest in ensuring its "bilateral diplomatic relations" with the US remain "transparent, consistent and reliable, and not frustrated by the actions of individual US states." The government also claims an interest in ensuring that its citizens are "accorded human and civil rights when present in the US in accordance with federal immigration law." Arizona's new immigration law has been widely criticized in regard to the law's constitutionality and alleged "legalization" of racial profiling, since it was signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) in April. In addition to the class action filed by the ACLU, Brewer is also currently facing federal lawsuits filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders (CONLAMIC) and several Tuscon police officers, who claim they can not properly implement the law without racially profiling. The Obama administration, though supporting immigration reform, has sharply criticized the law, calling it "misguided" and expressing concern that it could be applied in a discriminatory fashion. (Jurist, July 1)