Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights et al v. Deal et al

Filing 50

MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Complaint and for Declaratory and Injuctive Relief with Brief In Support by United Mexican States. (Attachments: # 1 Brief of Amicus Curiae, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Bondurant, Emmet)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
:
Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, :
:
et al.
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
vs.
:
:
Governor Nathan Deal, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
EMMET J. BONDURANT
Georgia Bar No. 066900
DAVID G.H. BRACKETT
Georgia Bar No. 068353
KAMAL GHALI
Georgia Bar No. 805055
BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

No. 1:11-cv-1804-TWT
[LODGED]
BRIEF OF THE
UNITED MEXICAN STATES
AS AMICUS CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HENRY L. SOLANO*
CARLA GORNIAK*
CHRISTOPHER R. CLARK*
DEWEY & LEBOEUF
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

*Application for admission pro hac vice forthcoming.
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
888183.1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF CITED AUTHORITIES........................................................................ ii
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE...................................................................1
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................3
I.

HB 87 Dangerously Contributes to a Patchwork of Laws That Impede
Effective and Consistent Diplomatic Relations...............................................3

II.

HB 87’s Intrusion in International Affairs Impedes International
Relations and Bilateral Collaboration .............................................................8
A.
B.

HB 87 Derails Efforts Towards a Uniform Legal Framework
that Ensures the Secure, Orderly and Legal Movement of
People ..................................................................................................12

C.
III.

HB 87 Will Severely Hinder Mexico-U.S. Trade and Tourism .........10

HB 87 § 19 Improperly Encumbers Bilateral Trade and Security
Collaboration ......................................................................................13

HB 87 Poses a Risk of Harassment by Law Enforcement to Mexican
Citizens ........................................................................................................139

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................23
Exhibit A: Declaration of James B. Steinberg
Exhibit B: Letter from Candido Morales
Exhibit C: White House, Immigration
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

888183.1

INDEX OF CITED AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Adarand Constructors v. Pena,
515 U.S. 200 (1995)............................................................................................20
Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats,
489 U.S. 141 (1989)..............................................................................................5
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting,
No. 09-115, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4018 (U.S. May 26, 2011) ..................................3
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.,
488 U.S. 469 (1989)............................................................................................20
Hines v. Davidowitz,
312 U.S. 52 (1941)..............................................................................................22
United States v. Arizona,
No. 10-16645, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7413 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2011) ................5
United States v. Montero-Camargo,
208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................20
Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678 (2001)......................................................................................12, 19
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, 31 U.S.C §§ 5311-5332 (2006) ..................................15
Foreign Trade Regulations, 15 C.F.R. Part 30 (2008).............................................15
Helms–Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 6021–6091 (2006) .............................................15
H.B. 56, 2011 Leg., Gen. Sess. (Ala. 2011) .............................................................6
H.B. 87, 2011 Leg., Gen. Sess. (Ga. 2011) ..................................................... passim
888183.1

ii

H.B. 497, 2011 Leg., Gen. Sess. (Utah 2011) ................................................ passim
International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994,
15 U.S.C. §§ 6201-6212 (2006) .........................................................................15
S.B. 590, 117th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ind. 2011) ........................................................2, 3
S.B. 1070, 49th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2010) ......................................... passim
Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (2006) ...................................................15
U.S. Const. ..............................................................................................................15
Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8-11 (2006) .........................................................15
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 596 U.N.T.S. 261,
Apr. 24, 1963 ........................................................................................... 1, 13, 17
OTHER AUTHORITIES
“A Comparison of Select Arizona, Georgia, and Federal Immigration
Control Statutes” in 2011 Upcoming Session Issues, Senate Research
Office, http://www.senate.ga.gov/sro/Documents/UpcomingIssues/
LegIssues11.pdf. ...................................................................................................5
Andorra Bruno & K. Larry Storrs, Consular Identification Cards:
Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, the Mexican Case,
and Related Legislation, Congressional Research Service
(May 26, 2005), available at
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32094.pdf. ......................................... passim
Andrew Selee, Christopher Wilson, & Katie Putnam, The United States
and Mexico: More than Neighbors, Woodrow Wilson Institute for
Scholars (2d ed. Sept. 2010), available at
http://wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/more%20Than%20Neighbors%20Co
mpact%2011.2.10.pdf ..........................................................................................8

888183.1

iii

Burton Bollag, Programs, Banks Working to Bring Hispanics into
Financial System, Hispanic Trending, Sept. 26, 2008,
http://juantornoe.blogs.com/
hispanictrending/2008/09/programs-banks.html ...............................................18
Chris Burbank, et al., Policing Immigration: A Job We Do Not Want,
Huffington Post, June 7, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chiefchris-burbank/policing-immigration-a-jo_b_602439.html.................................22
Consulado General de Ecuador en Nueva York (last visited June 9, 2011),
http://www.consuladoecuadornewyork.com/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=45 ............................................................14
Consulado General de México (last visited June 9, 2011),
http://portal.sre.gob.mx/denver/index.php?option=displaypage&
Itemid=130&op=page&SubMenu= ...................................................................14
Consulado General y Centro de Promoción de la República Argentina en
los Angeles (last visited June 9, 2011), http://www.consuladoargentinolosangeles.org/matricula.asp ..............................................................................14
Consulados de Bolivia en Estados Unidos (last visited June 9, 2011),
http://www.bolivia-usa.org/consulares/consulares_CRC.htm ...........................14
Consulados Generales de Guatemala en USA (last visited June 9, 2011),
http://consulguatesf.org/?page_id=44 ................................................................14
Consulate General of Brazil in Los Angeles (last visited June 9, 2011),
http://www.brazilian-consulate.org/consular/InstrucoesCMC.pdf ....................14
Consulate General of Mexico in Atlanta, The Consulate General
of Mexico in Atlanta expresses its concern over the progress
of certain bills in Georgia, March 4, 2011,
http://www.consulmexatlanta.org/HB87GEORGIA/Press001.pdf .................8, 9
Consulate General of Mexico in Atlanta, The Consulate General
of Mexico in Atlanta reiterates its concern over the approval
of an immigration bill in Georgia, April 15, 2011,
http://portal.sre.gob.mx/atlanta/pdf/Comunicado_de_Prensa_Press_
Release_02_Abr_11B.pdf ....................................................................................9
888183.1

iv

Consulate General of Nigeria, New York (last visited June 9, 2011),
http://www.nigeriahouse.com/forms/Registration%20Form%20
(Citizen).pdf .......................................................................................................14
Consulate of Mexico, Consular ID Card [brochure form] (on file with
authors) ...............................................................................................................15
Declaration of James B. Steinberg ¶ 5, July 2, 2010, United States v.
Arizona, No. 2:10-cv-01413-SRB (D. Ariz. July 6, 2010) ..............................3, 7
Embajada de México, Cuadro MCAS 2011(on file with authors) ..........................14
Embassy of Mali (last visited June 9, 2011), http://www.maliembassy.us,
follow Consular Services hyperlink....................................................................14
Embassy of Mexico, Press Release on the Passing of Immigration Laws
in Utah, Mar. 16, 2011, http://embamex.sre.gob.mx/usa/index.php/
home/13-press-releases-2011/507-embassy-of-mexico-press-releaseon-the-passing-of-immigration-laws-in-utah .......................................................7
The Federalist No. 4 (John Jay) ...........................................................................3, 22
The Federalist No. 42 (James Madison) ..............................................................3, 22
Giovanni Peri, The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and
Productivity, Economic Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
(Aug. 30, 2010), available at http://www.frbsf.org/publications/
economics/letter/2010/el2010-26.html ...............................................................10
Hatty Lee, Arizona SB 1070 Copycats Fall Flat in Most State Legislatures,
Colorlines, Mar. 31, 2011, http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/03/
arizona_sb_1070_copycats_fall_flat_in_most_state_legislatures.html ...............4
Hope Yen, Minority Population Growing, Census Says, Associated Press,
June 11, 2010, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/
articles/2010/06/11/minority_population_growing_census_says/ .....................21
I.R.S., Revised Application Standards for ITINs (last visited June 9, 2011),
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=222373,00.html ...........................16

888183.1

v

Issuance, Acceptance and Reliability Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on
Immigr., Border Sec. , and Claims of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
108th Congr. (2004)................................................................................15, 16, 18
J. F. Hornbeck, U.S.-Latin America Trade: Recent Trends and Policy
Issues, Congressional Research Service (Feb. 8, 2011), available at
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/98-840.pdf. ......................................................10
Jennifer K. Elsea & Michael John Garcia, Implications of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations upon the Regulation of Consular
Identification Cards, Congressional Research Service (May 23, 2005),
available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21627.pdf ..............................17
Jeremy Redmon, Governor signs Arizona-style immigration bill into law,
Atlanta J.-Const., May 13, 2011, http://www.ajc.com/news/georgiapolitics-elections/governor-signs-arizona-style-944703.html ..............................5
Jeremy Redmon, Obama Blasts Georgia’s Bill Targeting Illegal Immigrants,
Cox Newspapers, Apr. 28, 2011, http://timesfreepress.com/
news/2011/apr/28/obama-blasts-georgia-bill-targeting-illegal-immigr/. .............6
Letter from Candido Morales, Director, Instituto de los Mexicanos en el
Exterior, to Consejeros de la Comisión de Salud [Public Health
Counselors] (June 14, 2011), Exhibit B ...............................................................9
Liana Maris Epstein & Phillip Atiba Goff, Safety or Liberty?:
The Bogus Trade-Off of Cross-Deputization Policy,
10 Analyses of Soc. Issues & Pub. Pol’y 1 (2011) (on file with authors)..........21
M. Angeles Villarreal, U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues,
and Implications, Congressional Research Service (Feb. 24, 2011),
available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/ RL32934.pdf ..............................10
Meet the Press with Secretary Clinton [Transcript], May 2, 2010,
http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/2010/ 05/02/meet-the-press/ ..................8
Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan (last visited June 9, 2011),
http://www.pakconsulatela.org/download_forms/nicop.pdf .............................14

888183.1

vi

Office of Immigr. Statistics, 2009 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,
Aug. 2010, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2009/
ois_yb_2009.pdf ............................................................................................2, 12
Pew Hispanic Center, Census 2010: 50 Million Latinos Hispanics Account
for More Than Half of Nation’s Growth in Past Decade, Mar. 24, 2011,
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/140.pdf ......................................................20
Pew Hispanic Center, Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population
in the United States, 2009, Feb. 17, 2011, http://pewhispanic.org/
files/factsheets/foreignborn2009/Table%205.pdf...............................................12
Phillip Atiba Goff, et al., Deputizing Discrimination?, Consortium
for Police Leadership in Equity (May 3, 2010) (on file with authors) ...............22
Portal del Estado Colombiano (last visited June 9, 2011)
http://www.gobiernoenlinea.gov.co/tramite.aspx?traID=6635 .........................14
Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, The Mexican Government Regrets the
Enactment of HB 87 in Georgia, May 13, 2011, http://www.sre.gob.mx/
csocial/contenido/comunicados/2011/may/cp_157a.html.......................... passim
Seth Freed Wessler, A Year After SB 1070, the Deportation Pipeline Still
Begins in Washington, Colorlines, Apr. 25, 2011, http://colorlines.com/
archives/2011/04/a_year_after_sb_1070_the_deportation_pipeline_still_b
egins_in_washington.html ....................................................................................4
Tamar Jacoby, Immigration Nation 85, Foreign Affairs 50 (2006) ........................10
Transp. Dep’t, Border Crossing/Entry Data, June 1, 2010,
http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_BC/
TBDR_BC_Index.html ...................................................................................2, 12
Treas. Dep’t, A Report to Congress in Accordance with § 326(b) of the
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA
PATRIOT Act), Oct. 21, 2002,
http://www.knowledgemosaic.com/gateway/treasury/news/reports_
sec326breport.final.pdf. ......................................................................................16

888183.1

vii

Treas. Dep’t, Press Release, Results of the Notice of Inquiry on Final
Regulations Implementing Customer Identity Verification
Requirements under § 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, Sept. 18, 2003,
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js743.aspx.......16, 18
U.S. Census Bureau, The Hispanic Population: 2010, May 2011,
http://census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf .....................................21
White House, Immigration (last visited June 10, 2010), Exhibit C,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration ...............................................12
White House, Press Release Remarks by President Calderón of Mexico at
Official Arrival Ceremony, May 19, 2010,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-presidentcalder-n-mexico-official-arrival-ceremony . ......................................................11
White House, Press Release Remarks by President Obama and President
Calderón of Mexico at Joint Press Availability, May 19, 2010,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obamaand-president-calder-n-mexico-joint-press-availability .....................................10

888183.1

viii

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE
The United Mexican States (“Mexico”) herein expresses its grave concerns
over The Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011, House Bill 87,
2011 Leg., Gen. Sess. (Ga. 2011) (“HB 87”), and underscores the importance of
preliminarily enjoining HB 87 and of declaring it unconstitutional in its entirety.
HB 87 substantially and inappropriately burdens the consistent country to
country relations between Mexico and the United States of America (“U.S.”),
interfering with the strategic diplomatic interests of the two countries and
encouraging an imminent threat of state-sanctioned bias or discrimination. Under
Article 5(a) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (“Vienna
Convention”), to which both countries are parties, Mexico has a right to protect the
interests of its nationals within the limits of international law.2 Mexico seeks to
ensure that its citizens present in the U.S. are accorded the human and civil rights
granted under the U.S. Constitution, and affirms that HB 87 threatens the human
and civil rights of its nationals.
The enactment of HB 87, like the enactment of Arizona Senate Bill 1070,
49th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2010) (“SB 1070”), Utah House Bill 497, 2011
Leg., Gen. Sess. (Utah 2011) (“HB 497”), and Indiana Senate Bill 590, 117th Leg.,
2

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations art. 5, 596 U.N.T.S. 261, Apr. 24,
1963.
888183.1

1

Reg. Sess. (Ind. 2011) (“SB 590”), was closely followed at the highest levels of the
Mexican government,3 as well as by Mexicans and Americans in Georgia and the
U.S. The issues raised herein are of great importance to the people of Mexico,
including the millions of Mexican workers, tourists and students recently admitted
to the U.S.,4 those already present in the U.S., the countless millions whose daily
lives and jobs depend on international trade, and those who may also be affected
by immigration policies. Mexico respectfully submits that, if HB 87 is allowed to
take effect, it will have a significant and long-lasting adverse impact on U.S.–
Mexico bilateral relations, and on Mexican citizens and other people of Latin
American descent present in Georgia.

3

See, e.g., Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, The Mexican Government Regrets
the Enactment of HB 87 in Georgia (May 13, 2011),
http://www.sre.gob.mx/csocial/contenido/comunicados/2011/may/cp_157a.html.
4
Office of Immigr. Statistics, 2009 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Aug. 2010,
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2009/ois_yb_2009.
pdf; U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Border Crossing/Entry Data, June 1, 2010,
http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_BC/TBDR_BC_Ind
ex.html.
888183.1

2

ARGUMENT
I.

HB 87 Dangerously Contributes to a Patchwork of Laws That Impede
Effective and Consistent Diplomatic Relations
The U.S. Supreme Court has long made clear that “state actions that directly

interfere[] with the operation of a federal program” are preempted.5 HB 87 directly
interferes with federal immigration policy. As affirmed by Deputy Secretary of
State James B. Steinberg, “U.S. federal immigration law incorporates foreign
relations concerns by providing a comprehensive range of tools for regulating entry
and enforcement.”6 Mexico relies upon this consideration of its concerns in
conducting diplomatic relations with the U.S. on the various bilateral matters
impacted by U.S. immigration law. In direct opposition to this uniform U.S.
program, Georgia’s HB 87, Arizona’s SB 1070, Utah’s HB 497, Indiana’s SB 590
and the other state bills spurred by the avalanche of “copycat” legislation create a
dangerous patchwork of inconsistent state immigration laws. Already, at least 24
U.S. states introduced a “copycat bill,” and while about half were not enacted in

5

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, No. 09-115, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4018, at *11
(U.S. May 26, 2011). See The Federalist No. 42 (James Madison) (concerning
regulation of intercourse with foreign nations) (“If we are to be one nation in any
respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations.”); The Federalist No. 4
(John Jay)(concerning dangers from foreign force and influence).
6
Declaration of James B. Steinberg ¶ 5, July 2, 2010, United States v. Arizona, No.
2:10-cv-01413-SRB (D. Ariz. July 6, 2010) , attached hereto as Exhibit A.
888183.1

3

this legislative session, the attempts continue in several states.7 On June 2, 2011,
for example, Alabama enacted another “copycat” immigration bill, House Bill 56.8
But while these laws are all characterized as “copycat anti-immigration laws,” their
provisions differ significantly from state to state. These differences create a
complex and perilous legal patchwork. Various states are also introducing
immigration bills that are not entirely modeled after Arizona’s SB 1070, including
aspects of Georgia’s HB 87.9 As a result, such legislative agendas could result in a
mix of disparate laws across the U.S., creating an environment of uncertainty,
making it nearly impossible for Mexican nationals to understand their rights and
obligations in each U.S. state, and significantly harming the ability of the federal
governments of both nations to address issues of bilateral importance and essential
to the foreign policy of both nations.
The dangers inherent in a contradictory patchwork of immigration laws have
intensified with the enactment of HB 87. Even though HB 87 was, at least
7

As of April 22, 2011, 13 states had active “copycat” bills. Seth Freed Wessler, A
Year After SB 1070, the Deportation Pipeline Still Begins in Washington,
Colorlines, Apr. 25, 2011, http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/04/a_year_after_
sb_1070_the_deportation_pipeline_still_begins_in_washington.html; Hatty Lee,
Arizona SB 1070 Copycats Fall Flat in Most State Legislatures, Colorlines, Mar.
31, 2011, http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/03/arizona_sb_1070_copycats_fall_
flat_in_most_state_legislatures.html.
8
Alabama House Bill 56, 2011 Leg., Gen. Sess. (Ala. 2011).
9
Arizona SB 1070 Copycats Fall Flat in Most State Legislatures, supra note 7.
888183.1

4

partially, inspired by Arizona’s SB 1070,10 unlike Arizona’s bill, HB 87 authorizes
police officers who have “probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a
criminal violation” to verify such suspect’s immigration status based on certain
documentation or “[o]ther information as to the suspect’s identity that is sufficient
to allow the peace officer to independently identify the suspect.” In contrast,
Arizona’s bill requires that the officer inspect the identification documents of all
persons they stop, detain or arrest if they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe
such persons are in the country unlawfully.11 As the Ninth Circuit recognized just
recently, “the threat of 50 states layering their own immigration enforcement rules
on top of INA also weighs in favor of preemption.”12 Similarly, Alabama and
Utah’s bills also differ from Arizona’s SB 1070 and Georgia’s HB 87, and conflict

10

See Jeremy Redmon, Governor signs Arizona-style immigration bill into law,
Atlanta J.-Const., May 13, 2011, http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politicselections/governor-signs-arizona-style-944703.html.
11
HB 87 § 8 (amending Chapter 5 of Title 17 of the Official Code of Georgia
Annotated, by adding Article 5, including Section 17-5-100(b)); SB 1070 § 2; see
also chart titled “A Comparison of Select Arizona, Georgia, and Federal
Immigration Control Statutes” in 2011 Upcoming Session Issues, Senate Research
Office,
http://www.senate.ga.gov/sro/Documents/UpcomingIssues/LegIssues11.pdf.
12
United States v. Arizona, No. 10-16645, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7413, at *34
(9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2011); see also Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats, 489 U.S.
141, 161 (1989).
888183.1

5

with federal law.13 President Obama reaffirmed the importance of avoiding this
immigration patchwork. He said of Georgia’s bill: “It is a mistake for states to try
to do this piecemeal. We can’t have 50 different immigration laws around the
country. Arizona tried this, and a federal court already struck them down.”14
Mexico stresses that “[t]he vision promoted by this law goes against the principles
of shared responsibility, trust and mutual respect under which the federal
governments of Mexico and the United States have determined to work to address
shared challenges in North America.”15
HB 87 undermines the U.S. government’s approach of weighing multiple
competing interests and prioritizing them in an effort to develop a coherent and
effective foreign policy strategy. The U.S. seeks support of foreign governments
through a “delicately-navigated balance of interests across the entire range of U.S.

13

For example, Utah’s bill mandates all police officers to inspect the identification
documents of all people they stop, detain or arrest, whereas Arizona and
Alabama’s bills only require that the officer inspect the identification documents of
persons if they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe such persons are in the
country unlawfully; and Georgia’s bill authorizes the verification in the event
police officers who have “probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a
criminal violation[.]” HB 497 §§ 3, 4; SB 1070 § 2; HB 56 § 12; HB 87 § 8.
14
Jeremy Redmon, Obama Blasts Georgia’s Bill Targeting Illegal Immigrants,
Cox Newspapers, Apr. 28, 2011, http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/apr/28/
obama-blasts-georgia-bill-targeting-illegal-immigr/.
15
Mexican Government Regrets the Enactment of HB 87 in Georgia, supra note 3.
888183.1

6

national policy goals[,]” including immigration policy.16 Laws like SB 1070 and
HB 87 undermine U.S. foreign policy and thereby “endanger [the] ability to
negotiate international arrangements and to seek bilateral, regional or multilateral
support across a range of . . . non-immigration concerns.”17 These inconsistent laws
and obligations across federal and state levels negatively impact bilateral
negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico on a variety of foreign policy fronts.
Through its embassy, Mexico denounced this dangerous patchwork and, in
connection with the enactment of Utah’s bill, “reiterate[d] the commitment of the
Mexican federal government to comprehensive solutions and shared responsibility
with regard to migration.”18
Mexico has a legitimate interest in preventing U.S. states from affecting
bilateral relations. The roots of cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico run deep
and wide. The executive and legislative branches of the two countries, every
federal agency, and dozens of state and local governments collaborate directly with
their counterparts across the border on issues as diverse as emergency preparedness

16

Decl. James Steinberg ¶ 12, supra note 6.
Id. ¶ 14.
18
Embassy of Mexico, Press Release on the Passing of Immigration Laws in Utah,
Mar. 16, 2011, http://embamex.sre.gob.mx/usa/index.php/home/13-press-releases2011/507-embassy-of-mexico-press-release-on-the-passing-of-immigration-lawsin-utah.
17

888183.1

7

and free trade facilitation.19 Because the bilateral cooperation is extensive, it is
essential for U.S.–Mexico bilateral relations that each sovereign be able to
approach discussions with a consistent front.
II.

HB 87’s Intrusion in International Affairs Impedes International
Relations and Bilateral Collaboration
In order to conduct effective diplomatic negotiations with the U.S., countries

such as Mexico need and depend on consistent and reliable bilateral relations.
Amicus Curiae cannot effectively collaborate with the U.S. to address inherently
international matters, such as immigration, trade and security, if U.S. political
subdivisions establish their own requirements conflicting not only with each other,
but also with the U.S. government’s efforts, priorities and commitments.
Through HB 87, Georgia directly interferes with the U.S. government’s
ability to conduct foreign affairs and policy. As was the case with Arizona’s SB
1070,20 even prior to going into effect, HB 87 is already straining U.S.–Mexico
relations. On March 4 and April 15, the Consulate General of Mexico in Atlanta
expressed its concern over the passage of HB 87 by the House of Representatives

19

Andrew Selee, et al., The United States and Mexico: More than Neighbors,
Woodrow Wilson Institute for Scholars at 13-14 (May 2010), available at
http://wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/WWC_MI_More-Than-Neighbors-2010update.pdf.
20
See Meet the Press with Secretary Clinton [Transcript], May 2, 2010,
http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/2010/ 05/02/meet-the-press/.
888183.1

8

and the Senate of Georgia, respectively.21 “[T]he Mexican government, through the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Embassy of Mexico in the United States and the
Consulate General in Atlanta, expressed its concerns and objections to provisions
in this law[]” and stated that “all means available will be used to defend the rights
and dignity of the Mexicans in Georgia.”22
HB 87 has already strained diplomatic ties and affected bilateral
collaboration, as exemplified by the recent decision of the Mexican Ministries of
Health and Foreign Affairs to hold the inauguration of the Binational Health Week
and Public Policy Forum in San Antonio, Texas rather than in Atlanta, Georgia, as
was originally planned, as a result of the negative atmosphere created towards an
open discussion of these issues by the enactment of HB 87.23

21

Consulate General of Mexico in Atlanta, The Consulate General of Mexico in
Atlanta expresses its concern over the progress of certain bills in Georgia, March
4, 2011, http://www.consulmexatlanta.org/HB87GEORGIA/Press001.pdf;
Consulate General of Mexico in Atlanta, The Consulate General of Mexico in
Atlanta reiterates its concern over the approval of an immigration bill in Georgia,
April 15, 2011, http://portal.sre.gob.mx/atlanta/pdf/Comunicado_de_Prensa_
Press_Release_02_Abr_11B.pdf.
22
Mexican Government Regrets the Enactment of HB 87 in Georgia, supra note 3.
23
Letter from Candido Morales, Director, Instituto de los Mexicanos en el
Exterior, to Consejeros de la Comisión de Salud [Public Health Counselors] (June
14, 2011), attached hereto as Exhibit B.
888183.1

9

A.

HB 87 Will Severely Hinder Mexico-U.S. Trade and Tourism

Mexico is greatly concerned about the possible repercussions of HB 87 on
trade and commercial relations with the U.S. and Georgia. Growth in U.S.–LatinAmerican trade has historically outpaced all other regions.24 Mexico is the second
largest buyer of U.S. exports.25 The interaction of labor markets, tourism, business
travel and student migration is of great importance to both economies.26
To enhance economic trade and collaboration, the governments of the U.S.
and Mexico have pursued trade liberalization through collaborative multilateral,
regional and bilateral negotiations, resulting in advantageous multifaceted

24

J. F. Hornbeck, U.S.-Latin America Trade: Recent Trends and Policy Issues,
Congressional Research Service at 1 (Sept. 3, 2009), available at
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/98-840.pdf.
25
Id. at 5; M. Angeles Villarreal, U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues,
and Implications, Congressional Research Service at 16-18 (Feb. 24, 2011),
available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf.
26
White House, Press Release Remarks by President Obama and President
Calderón of Mexico at Joint Press Availability, May 19, 2010, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-andpresident-calder-n-mexico-joint-press-availability. A Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco study estimates that immigration from 1990 to 2007 into the U.S.
increased U.S. economic efficiency and productivity resulting in a 6.6% to 9.9%
increase in real income per U.S. worker. Giovanni Peri, The Effect of Immigrants
on U.S. Employment and Productivity, Economic Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco at 10 (Aug. 30, 2010), available at
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-26.html. See also
Tamar Jacoby, Immigration Nation, 85 Foreign Affairs 50, 54-58 (2006).
888183.1

10

economic relationships.27 Diplomacy is crucial to such efforts. Mexico’s Ministry
of Foreign Affairs asserts that “[t]he legislators who voted for the law and the
Governor of Georgia overlooked the many contributions made by the immigrant
community to the state’s economy and society, as well as Mexico’s importance as
its third largest export market.”28 By ignoring crucial bilateral concerns, the harms
caused by HB 87 stretch beyond immigration and negatively impact the rich
economic ties of both countries.
Like Arizona’s SB 1070, HB 87 impedes collaboration; together, the bills
push “nations that work together and trade” to “mutual recrimination, which has
been so useless and so damaging in previous times.”29 Strained diplomatic relations
substantially impede the ability of the U.S. and Mexico to collaboratively develop,
enhance and maintain commercial exchange critical to both of their economies.

27

Hornbeck, supra note 24 at 5; Villarreal, supra note 25 at 16-18.
Mexican Government Regrets the Enactment of HB 87 in Georgia, supra note 3.
29
Press Release, White House, Remarks by President Calderón of Mexico at
Official Arrival Ceremony, May 19, 2010, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-calder-n-mexicoofficial-arrival-ceremony. See also Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752,
770 (2004) (removing blockade to cross-border trucking); and Villarreal, supra
note 25 at 20-24 (discussing Mexico-U.S. trade issues).
28

888183.1

11

B.

HB 87 Derails Efforts Towards a Uniform Legal Framework that
Ensures the Secure, Orderly and Legal Movement of People

With over 11 million nationals residing in the U.S.30 and millions more
admitted to the U.S. as tourists and travelers each year,31 Mexico has a significant
interest in ensuring the secure, orderly and legal movement of its nationals in and
through the U.S. The Obama Administration recognizes the need for collaboration
with Mexico as one of its five guiding immigration principles.32 Safe and orderly
migration conditions can only be achieved through comprehensive, nationwide
U.S. immigration policy. As the Supreme Court affirmed, “[w]e recognize . . . the
Nation’s need to ‘speak with one voice’ in immigration matters.”33
The effects of U.S.–Mexico migration on labor markets, tourism, business
travel, and education is of great importance to both countries.34 It is due to the

30

Pew Hispanic Center, Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-Born Population in the
United States, 2009, Feb. 17, 2011, http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/
foreignborn2009/Table%205.pdf.
31
During 2009, the U.S. admitted over 6 million Mexican citizens under nonimmigrant visas and approximately 58 million people admitted across the U.S.–
Mexico border. 2009 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, supra note 4; Transp.
Dep’t, Border Crossing/Entry Data, June 1, 2010,
http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_BC/TBDR_BC_Ind
ex.html.
32
White House, Immigration (last visited June 10, 2010),
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration.
33
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 700 (2001).
34
Id.; see also Jacoby, supra note 26 at 54-58 (noting that foreign labor has
complemented, not competed with, the U.S. labor force).
888183.1

12

benefits of international collaboration in these areas, that the U.S. and Mexico
recognize the importance of having a national immigration framework that ensures
the secure, orderly and legal movement of people into and across the U.S.35 HB 87
creates an independent state immigration enforcement system that not only derails
bilateral economic, social and security efforts, but also imperils efforts at a
comprehensive solution for immigration policy. Mexico cannot effectively
cooperate with the U.S. when Georgia interferes with the countries’ efforts.
C.

HB 87 § 19 Improperly Encumbers Bilateral Trade and Security
Collaboration

HB 87’s ban on agencies and political subdivisions of Georgia from
accepting consular identification cards (“CIDs”)36 adds a heavy and impermissible
burden to U.S.–Mexico trade, commerce, and security collaboration. The Vienna
Convention permits consulates of foreign nations to “issu[e] passports and travel
documents to nationals of the sending State[.]”37 Mexico and other signatories of
the Vienna Convention exercise this right by issuing CIDs to their citizens,
including those present in the U.S.38 CIDs are a great aid in the bilateral efforts to

35

See Remarks by Presidents Obama and Calderón, supra note 26.
HB 87 § 19.
37
Vienna Convention, art. 5(d); United Nations, Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations, Apr. 24 1963, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3648.html.
38
Andorra Bruno & K. Larry Storrs, Consular Identification Cards: Domestic and
Foreign Policy Implications, the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation at 1,
36

888183.1

13

enhance international commerce and security collaboration.39 By enacting Section
19 of HB 87, Georgia improperly encumbers the bilateral trade and security efforts
of the U.S. and Mexico.
Section 19 of HB 87 imposes a hefty obstacle to U.S.–Mexico commerce.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce with
Congressional Research Service, May 26, 2005,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32094.pdf.
In addition to Amicus Curiae, some examples of governments that currently issue
CIDs in the U.S. are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala,
Mali, Nigeria and Pakistan. Consulado General y Centro de Promoción de la
República Argentina en los Angeles, http://www.consuladoargentinolosangeles.org/matricula.asp; Consulados de Bolivia en Estados Unidos,
http://www.bolivia-usa.org/consulares/consulares_CRC.htm; Consulate General of
Brazil in Los Angeles, http://www.brazilian-consulate.org/consular/Instrucoes
CMC.pdf; Portal del Estado Colombiano, http://www.gobiernoenlinea.gov.co/
tramite.aspx?traID=6635; Consulado General de Ecuador en Nueva York,
http://www.consuladoecuadornewyork.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=
view&id=29&Itemid=45; Consulados Generales de Guatemala en USA,
http://consulguatesf.org/?page_id=44; Ambassade du Mali,
http://www.ambamalicanada.org/carteconsul.html; Consulado General de México,
http://portal.sre.gob.mx/denver/index.php?option=displaypage&Itemid=130&op=p
age&SubMenu=; Consulate General of Nigeria, New York,
http://www.nigeriahouse.com/forms/Registration%20Form%20(Citizen).pdf;
Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, http://www.pakconsulatela.org/
download_forms/nicop.pdf (last visited June 9, 2011).
39
CIDs: Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, supra note 38 at 5-6, 11
(discussing the public safety benefits and quoting the findings of a proposed bill:
“[a]ccepting matricula consular as a form of identification allows Mexican
immigrants to enter the financial mainstream and provides banks and other
financial institutions with a new, fast-growing market.”). See also Embajada de
México, Cuadro MCAS 2011 (on file with authors) (showing that the Mexican CID
is accepted as valid identification in numerous commercial transactions as well as
by over a thousand police departments).
888183.1

14

foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”40
Congress has exercised its power over foreign trade with the promulgation of
copious laws, regulations and policies, including regarding import tariffs, antitrust,
and anti-money laundering.41 Among these policies, the U.S. permits and “has
tacitly encouraged” CIDs to be used for a variety of commercial transactions.42
This has lead CIDs (which include the bearers’ current verified U.S. address, an
important feature that is not included in Mexico’s passports)43 to be accepted as a
valid form of identification at various financial institutions, energy and utility
companies, airlines, telecommunications companies, insurance companies,
hospitals, health providers, retail entities, clubs and organizations, and by the
Internal Revenue Service to request an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number
in order to pay taxes.44 In fact, when describing the Department of Treasury’s
40

U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3.
See, e.g., the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, 31 U.S.C. §§ 5311-5332 (2006); the
Foreign Trade Regulations, 15 C.F.R. Part 30 (2008); the Sherman Antitrust Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (2006); the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8-11 (2006); the
International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. §§ 62016212 (2006); and the Helms–Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 6021-6091 (2006).
42
Issuance, Acceptance and Reliability Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on
Immigr., Border Sec., and Claims of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Congr.
30 (2004) (statement of Marti Dinerstein).
43
Consulate of Mexico, Consular ID Card [brochure form] (on file with authors).
44
According to a report provided by the Mexican Embassy, the MCAS is accepted
as valid identification in 166 financial institutions, as well as energy and utility
companies, airlines, telecommunications companies, insurance companies,
41

888183.1

15

Proposed Customer Identification and Verification Rules in connection with the
USA PATRIOT ACT, the federal government explicitly stated that “the proposed
regulations do not discourage bank acceptance of the ‘matricula consular’ identity
card that is being issued by the Mexican government to immigrants[,]”45 which
decision was reconsidered and reaffirmed “after reviewing over 34,000
comments[.]”46 This benefits the U.S. by, among other things, permitting banking
institutions to better track whether accounts are used for illegal activity,47 for
example, under federal anti-money laundering laws. Nonetheless, Georgia
attempts to impermissibly burden U.S. foreign policy regarding commerce with
foreign nations, including Amicus Curiae, by refusing to accept CIDs as forms of

hospitals, health providers, retail entities, clubs and organizations, museums,
libraries, school districts, universities, jails, 538 counties and 1,022 police
departments in the U.S. Cuadro MCAS 2011, supra note 39; see also CIDs:
Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, supra note 38 at 2. I.R.S., Revised
Application Standards for ITINs (last visited June 9, 2011),
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=222373,00.html.
45
Treas. Dep’t, A Report to Congress in Accordance with §326(b) of the Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT)at 16 n.17, Oct. 21,
2002, http://www.knowledgemosaic.com/gateway/treasury/news/
reports_sec326breport.final.pdf.
46
Treas. Dep’t, Press Release, Results of the Notice of Inquiry on Final
Regulations Implementing Customer Identity Verification Requirements under
Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, Sept. 18, 2003,
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js743.aspx.
47
See Issuance, Acceptance and Reliability Hearing, supra note 42 at 5 (statement
of Jackson Lee, 18th Congressional District Representative).
888183.1

16

identification for official purposes.48 This refusal to accept CIDs constitutes an
intrusion in the bilateral economic and commercial relations of the U.S. and
Mexico, and is contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Convention, which provides
signatory nations several remedies against noncompliant countries, including the
right to reciprocate the treatment.49 By coercing sovereigns to engage in such
retaliatory actions, Georgia clearly and substantially interferes with the
advantageous multifaceted economic relationships developed by the U.S. and
Mexico.
Section 19 of HB 87 severely hinders U.S.–Mexico security collaboration.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the security and acceptance
of CIDs as identification forms was thoroughly debated at the U.S. federal

48

HB 87 § 19 (adding new Section 50-36-2).
Vienna Convention, art. 72(2); “[I]t is traditional practice for many institutions
in one country to accept the official documents of another country for a variety of
transactions, such as accepting a U.S. driver’s license for driving automobiles in
Mexico. . . . Should a foreign country decide to limit acceptance of such
documentation or other traditional documentation such as state-issued
identifications or driver’s licenses, . . . the actions of American citizens abroad
could be seriously restricted.” CIDs: Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications,
supra note 38 at 9 (citing Roberta Jacobson, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs) (internal quotations omitted); see also
Jennifer K. Elsea & Michael John Garcia, Implications of the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations upon the Regulation of Consular Identification Cards,
Congressional Research Report, May 23, 2005,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21627.pdf.

49

888183.1

17

government.50 Among other factors, the federal government considered the impact
that the acceptance of Mexico’s CID would have on cooperation between the U.S.
and Mexico,51 and the security enhancements made by Mexico to its CID.52 The
U.S. federal government decided to continue accepting Mexico’s securityenhanced CID, the “matrícula consular de alta seguridad” or “MCAS.”53 The U.S.
and Mexico continue to strengthen their collaboration with regard to the CID and
its impact on bilateral commerce.54 Georgia’s actions effectively invalidate the
result of the federal government’s carefully deliberated foreign policy and
diplomatic efforts, and therefore directly interferes with the “operation of a federal
50

See, e.g., Issuance, Acceptance and Reliability Hearing, supra note 42; CIDs:
Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, supra note 38.
51
A report to the U.S. Congress discussed that the U.S.’s continued acceptance of
the CID has impacted many areas of the bilateral relation, including trade, drug
control, and foreign policy, and has resulted in “improved bilateral cooperation in
many areas, most notably in enhanced Mexican efforts to control drug trafficking
activities, to cooperate on border control plans, . . .” CIDs: Domestic and Foreign
Policy Implications, supra note 38 at 7-8.
52
Id. at 1-2 (describing the security enhancements to the cards, as well as the
creation of a centralized database to prevent the issuance of duplicates following
the June 2003 criticism of Steve McCraw, F.B.I., before the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Claims of the House Judiciary Committee).
53
See, e.g., Treas. Dep’t, Results of the Notice of Inquiry, supra note 46.
54
See, e.g., Burton Bollag, Programs, Banks Working to Bring Hispanics into
Financial System, Hispanic Trending, Sept. 26, 2008, http://juantornoe.blogs.com/
hispanictrending/2008/09/programs-banks.html (describing the collaboration
between the “Treasury Department and several other government agencies and
community organizations . . . with a number of U.S. and Mexican banks and the
Mexican Consulate” to accept CIDs to open “special account[s] that can be
accessed by a relative in Mexico using a debit card in an ATM.”).
888183.1

18

program[,]” the “one voice” of the U.S. government,55 and the U.S.–Mexico
diplomatic relations. Georgia’s heavy and impermissible burden substantially
impedes Mexico’s ability to effectively engage in collaborative bilateral security
and trade negotiations with the U.S.
III.

HB 87 Poses a Risk of Harassment by Law Enforcement to Mexican
Citizens
Discriminatory enforcement of the law has adverse legal, social, economic

and political implications. Mexico has a legitimate interest in ensuring that its
citizens are not deprived of international and constitutional protections or subjected
to hostile attitudes or action by U.S. state actors or the society at large.
Although HB 87 has been enacted with race-neutral language that “[a] peace
officer shall not consider race, color, or national origin in implementing the
requirements of this Code section except to the extent permitted by the
Constitutions of Georgia and of the United States[,]”56 Mexico is deeply concerned
that the application of HB 87 by local law enforcement and Georgia’s officers who
will have the power to verify the immigration status of a person if the officer has
“probable cause” to believe that such person has committed a “criminal

55

See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700; Whiting, 2011 U.S. LEXIS at *11.
HB 87 § 8 (amending Chapter 5 of Title 17 of the Official Code of Georgia
Annotated, by adding Article 5, including Section 17-5-100(d)).
56

888183.1

19

violation,”57 could lead to harassment of Mexican citizens and individuals of
Hispanic appearance alike. In light of the continuous growth of the Hispanic and
Mexican–American population in the U.S.,58 Mexico is concerned and simply
unsure how HB 87 can be applied in a race-neutral manner.
The Ninth Circuit has noted that the “use of race and ethnicity for such
purposes [as a criterion in government decision-making] has been severely
limited.”59 The court acknowledged that “[t]he Hispanic population of the nation
and of the Southwest and Far West in particular, has grown enormously — at least
five-fold in the four [border] states referred to in the Supreme Court’s decision
[Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas].”60 Even at border check stops, the
Ninth Circuit explained that
at this point in our nation’s history, and given the continuing changes in
our ethnic and racial composition, Hispanic appearance is, in general, of
such little probative value that it may not be considered as a relevant factor
where particularized or individualized suspicion is required . . . in
determining which particular individuals among the vast Hispanic
57

Id.
See Pew Hispanic Center, Census 2010: 50 Million Latinos: Hispanics Account
for More Than Half of Nation’s Growth in Past Decade, Mar. 24, 2011,
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/140.pdf.
59
United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing
Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995); City of Richmond v. J.A.
Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)).
60
Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d at 1133-34 n.22. The court instructed that race
“may be considered when the suspected perpetrator of a specific offense has been
identified as having such an appearance.”
58

888183.1

20

populace should be stopped by law enforcement officials on the lookout
for illegal aliens.61
In fact, recent preliminary demographic information establishes that minorities
represent more than 50% of the population in Hawaii, New Mexico, California and
Texas.62 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Hispanic population in Georgia
grew 96.1%, from 435,227 people in 2000 to 853,689 in 2010.63 Being Latino has
as much to do today with being a U.S. citizen, as it does with being an immigrant.
Nonetheless, “the speed demanded by [cross-deputization immigration] policing
could lead to an increase in stereotyping and heuristic processing[,]” and thus,
“[t]he association between Latino and undocumented immigration has the potential
to become an automatic linkage.”64 Mexico is rightly concerned about the latent
discriminatory effect of HB 87 on its citizens. Given the growing numbers of the
Hispanic population, it is imperative that immigration enforcement be carried out
in a way that is fair to all individuals regardless of their ethnic origin. Furthermore,
Mexico is concerned about the impact this discriminatory cross-deputization
61

Id. at 1134-35.
Hope Yen, Minority Population Growing, Census Says, Associated Press, June
11, 2010, available at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/
2010/06/11/minority_population_growing_census_says/.
63
U.S. Census Bureau, The Hispanic Population: 2010 at 6, May 2011,
http://census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf.
64
Liana Maris Epstein & Phillip Atiba Goff, Safety or Liberty?: The Bogus TradeOff of Cross-Deputization Policy, 10 Analyses of Soc. Issues & Pub. Pol’y 1, 5
(2011).
62

888183.1

21

regime could have on the safety of its citizens. Research suggests that “requiring
the police to act as immigration officers has a detrimental effect on police
legitimacy[,]” and leads to chilling effects on crime reporting by both Whites and
Latinos.65 This “allows criminal activity to transpire unchecked[,]”66 greatly
obstructing the international fight against transnational organized crime. Mexico
has a strong interest in ensuring that its citizens are protected from discrimination
and crime, and that its efforts and collaboration with the U.S. regarding
transnational organized crime are not encumbered by the actions of individual
states; herein Georgia.
“[T]he interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interests of
the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field
affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference.”67 HB 87
poses an imminent threat to U.S.–Mexico bilateral relations. Amicus Curiae has a
65

Id. at 6; see also Phillip Atiba Goff, et al., Deputizing Discrimination?,
Consortium for Police Leadership in Equity, May 3, 2010 (on file with authors);
Chris Burbank, et al., Policing Immigration: A Job We Do Not Want, Huffington
Post, June 7, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chief-chris-burbank/policingimmigration-a-jo_b_602439.html.
66
Epstein, supra note 64 at 8-9, noting also that “non-White officers,” who play
crucial liaison roles within their own racial and ethnic communities, would be
more likely to quit their jobs if such cross-deputation immigration laws are
enacted.
67
United States v. Arizona, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7413, at *34 (quoting Hines v.
Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 63 (1941); see also The Federalist No. 42 and The
Federalist No. 4.
888183.1

22

compelling interest in consistent relations among sovereigns, and in the Court
preliminarily enjoining HB 87 and declaring it unconstitutional in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Amicus Curiae respectfully requests that this
Court preliminarily enjoin HB 87, and declare it unconstitutional in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted, this 15th day of June 2011, by counsel for Amicus
Curiae,

/s/ Emmet J. Bondurant
EMMET J. BONDURANT
GEORGIA BAR NO. 066900
DAVID G.H. BRACKETT
GEORGIA BAR NO. 068353
KAMAL GHALI
GEORGIA BAR NO. 805055
BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

888183.1

23

HENRY L. SOLANO
CARLA GORNIAK
CHRISTOPHER R. CLARK
DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

888183.1

24

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
WITH LOCAL RULE 5.1

Pursuant to LR 5.1 and 7.1D, I hereby certify that the attached Amicus
Curiae brief complies with the typeface and the type style requirements of LR 5.1.
This brief was prepared in Times New Roman 14-point font

/s/ Emmet J. Bondurant
Emmet J. Bondurant

888183.1

25