Four Takeaways From Today's Arizona Immigration Decision

By Ian Millhiser on Jun 25, 2012 at 11:53 am

This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-3 decision striking down three key provisions of Arizona's SB 1070 law, and effectively limiting the scope of the law's "show me your papers" provision requiring law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is in the country illegally. Here are four key takeaways from this decision:

1. Arizona Does Not Get To Have Its Own Immigration Policy: For decades the backbone of American immigration law has been an understanding that the United States has one immigration policy set by our national government, not fifty different immigration policies set by fifty different states. Today's decision leaves this basic framework in place. In the words of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, "[i]t is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States."

2. Arizona Cannot Create New Crimes Targeting Immigrants: SB 1070 criminalizes "willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document," it makes it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or seek work, and it authorizes police to arrest anyone the officer has "probably cause to believe" can be deported. All of these provisions were struck down by the Court. Notably, Justice Kennedy's opinion acknowledged how forcing immigrants into the shadows can lead to their exploitation: "making criminals out of aliens engaged in unauthorized work—aliens who already face the possibility of employer exploitation because of their removable status—would be inconsistent with federal policy and objectives."

3. Arizona Cannot Detain People Simply Because They Might Be Undocumented: Although the opinion does not strike down the "show me your papers" provision, it significantly lessens the harm caused by this provision. SB 1070 provides that "[a]ny person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released," but the Court warns the state not to apply this provision literally if it wants to avoid running headlong into the Constitution:

Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. The program put in place by Congress does not allow state or local officers to adopt this enforcement mechanism.

But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. To take one example, a person might be stopped for jaywalking in Tucson and be unable to produce identification. The first sentence of §2(B) instructs officers to make a "reasonable" attempt to verify his immigration status with ICE if there is reasonable suspicion that his presence in the United States is unlawful. The state courts may conclude that, unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state officers, it would not be reasonable to prolong the stop for the immigration inquiry.

Although the Court technically does not reason a decision on this question, under today's opinion, prolonging a person's detention simply to verify their immigration status is almost certainly not allowed.

4. Obama's DREAM Initiative Is Legal: Finally, as Judd Legum notes, the opinion strongly hints that the Obama Administration's directive allowing undocumented college students and veterans to remain in the country is lawful. Indeed, on page 17 of the opinion, the Court explicitly lists "a veteran" or a "college student" as two examples of undocumented immigrants who should not experience "unnecessary harassment."

In the end, the Obama Administration got 85 percent of what it asked for from the Supreme Court today, plus an unexpected lift to its newly announced immigration directive. Three of SB 1070′s four challenged provisions were struck down, and the remaining provision was significantly limited. Moreover, it is possible that a subsequent challenge could invalidate show me your papers for good. The Court leaves open the possibility that future constitutional challenges to this provision could strike it down.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To 'Show Me Your Papers,' Strikes Down Part Of Arizona Immigration Law |

The Supreme Court just announced that parts of Arizona's harsh immigration law, SB 1070, are preempted by federal immigration law. Significantly, however, the justices did also held that it was "improper for the lower courts to enjoin Section 2(B), which requires police officers to check the legal status of anyone arrested for any crime before they can be released."

Update

Two significant points about the decision is that the Court voted 8-0 to reject this particular challenge to the show me your papers provision, with Kagan recused. The mtitutional racial profiling.

Updateajority opinion also leaves open the possibility that a future challenge to this provision could succeed, including a claim that the law leads to uncons

Georgetown Law professor David Cole said on CNN moments ago, "this is almost a total victory for the Obama administration."

Update

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) is also claiming victory. "Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law," she said in a statement.

Update

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) notes: "[I]t is disturbing that Mitt Romney called the unconstitutional Arizona law a 'model' for immigration reform. Laws that legalize discrimination are not compatible with our nation's ideals and traditions of equal rights, and the idea that such an unconstitutional law should serve as a 'model' for national reform is far outside the American mainstream."

States face uphill climb on immigration enforcement after court ruling, DHS shift

Published June 25, 2012

FoxNews.com

States seeking to take immigration enforcement into their own hands are facing an uphill climb, after the Supreme Court reined in Arizona's disputed law and the Obama administration followed by rescinding a key partnership allowing local police to enforce federal immigration rules.

The day's decisions further weakened efforts by Arizona, and potentially other states, to take on immigration enforcement themselves.

The high court decision Monday struck down three provisions in Arizona's law, including one that allowed local police to arrest anybody they suspect committed a deportable offense. The ruling left in place, though, a central plank that required local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally -- a provision Democrats claim could lead to "racial profiling," though Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer denies that.

The Obama administration quickly moved to deflate the remaining provision.

By Monday afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security had pulled back on a program known as 287(g), which allows the feds to deputize local officials to make immigration-based arrests. According to a Homeland Security official, the administration has determined those agreements are "not useful" now in states that have Arizona-style laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has since rescinded that agreement in Arizona -- with the state itself, and with three local law enforcement agencies.

The move means that even if local police step up immigration checks, they'll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.

And federal officials made clear that ICE would be selective in responding to the expected rise in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony.

Brewer, in a statement released late Monday, excoriated the administration for the move. She said the decision showed Obama "has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. ... We are on our own, apparently."

All these factors led some GOP officials to question the future of state-led efforts to tackle illegal immigration.

"We've lost the ability for states to take problems that they themselves are facing and do something about it," said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who represents one of several states that implemented their own Arizona-style laws.

Lee told Fox News that the Supreme Court decision means states "have to be careful not to run afoul" of the court's ruling. "It means it'll be more difficult for states to set their own penalties on conduct that's already against the law federally," he said. "The state governments have lost something today."

The Supreme Court ruling, however, left parts of the Arizona law standing, and Republicans at the state level vowed to press on.

Brewer, in a brief news conference, claimed the Arizona law had been "vindicated."

"The heart of the bill was upheld -- unanimously," she said, vowing to move forward with implementation and take on any remaining legal challenges.

Immigration laws in other states -- Utah, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina -- face an uncertain fate.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said Monday that his state officials will "analyze" the opinion to determine its impact on Alabama but stressed that their law is "not identical" to Arizona's.

"I will keep my commitment to uphold and enforce Alabama's anti-illegal immigration law," he said. "The core of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law remains."

The federal government's stated reluctance, though, to respond to state-level calls pertaining to immigration checks could make it difficult for Alabama and other states to carry out those laws. The Justice Department also announced Monday that it had set up a public hotline to report potential abuses linked to the Arizona policy.

President Obama, in a written statement, said the decision makes clear that a "patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system -- it's part of the problem."

Republicans agreed on the first part of that statement. With Arizona's law stripped of key provisions, they renewed their call for the federal government to step in with a comprehensive immigration solution -- and their criticism of Obama's handling of that task.

"Today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration," Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in a statement.

ESPECIAL RED

30/April 2010

El presente articulo es una rapida e inicial traducion al castellano del Editor, el dia de hoy del articulo del Arzobispo Desmond Tutu sobre la execrable ley de Arizona.

Las negritas son del Editor.

Editor

Publicado en exclusivo para : The Community.com

27 abril 2010

Version original en ingles y comentarios en ingles :

http://thecommunity.com/blog/2010/04/28/arizona-the-wrong-answer/

El Arzobispo Desmond Tutu me entristece hoy ante la perspectiva de un joven inmigrante hispana en Arizona vaya a la ...

by ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU por el Arzobispo Desmond Tutu

Me entristesco hoy ante la perspectiva que una joven inmigrante hispana en Arizona vaya a la tienda de comestibles y olvide traer su pasaporte y documentos de inmigración con ella. No puedo ser imparcial ante el hecho de que por el acto mismo de su presencia en el supermercado, pronto este hecho será tipificado com un crimen en el estado donde vive. O ante el hecho de que un policía al escuchar su acento tenga una "sospecha razonable" de que ella es una inmigrante ilegal, que puede - y – sera tomada en custodia hasta que alguien resuelva, mientras sus hijos están en casa esperando para la cena.

Igualmente inquietante es lo que sucederá en la mente del policía. La Policia habla hoy la sobre la forma en que no desea, y no deseara , participar en la asuncion de juicios basados en perfiles raciales. Sin embargo, ante la posibilidad de utilizar el sentido común y la compasión, o acosar a una persona que no haya hecho nada malo, un aspecto particularmente siniestro de la nueva ley de inmigración de Arizona se cierne sobre su cabeza. Él puede ser demandado personalmente, por CUALQUIER persona, por no hacer cumplir este nuevo acto inhumano.

Reconozco que Arizona se ha convertido en un punto de acceso cada vez mayor para la inmigración ilegal desde el sur. La ola ha traído consigo el aumento de la violencia y el tráfico ilícito de drogas.

Sin embargo, una solución que degrada a la gente inocente, o que haga a cualquier persona sospechoso porque habla mal el ingles, no es una solución. Una solución que no distingue entre un niño de corta edad que cruzan la frontera en busca de su madre y un traficante de drogas no es una solución.

No estoy hablando desde una torre de marfil. Yo vivía en la Sudáfrica que a afortunadamente se ha desvanecido en la historia, donde podría ser un negro o una mujer arrestada en la calle y arrojada a la cárcel por no tener sus documentos el o ella consigo.

¿Que tan lejos esto puede llevar ? Nosotros lo vivimos. Vivimos a la policía despertando a un hombre en medio de la noche y transportandolo a la cárcel por no tener sus documentos con su persona mientras dormía. El hecho de que estaba en su mesita de noche, cerca de la cama no era suficiente.

Por supuesto, si usted sugerie tal posibilidad hoy a un policía de Arizona, insistira en que él nunca haría una cosa así. Y yo le creo. Arizona está muy lejos de la Sudáfrica del apartheid.

El problema es que bajo la nueva ley, el uno o dos que lo HARIAN estarian legitimados. Todo lo que ellos tienen que decir es que ellos creían que los inmigrantes ilegales se estaban albergados en la casa. Ellos estarian protegidos y sancionados por esta ley.

Abominaciones como el apartheid no comienzan con una población total que derepente llega a ser inhumana. Comienzan aquí. Comienzan con la generalización de características no deseadas a través de todo un segmento de una población. Comienzan con tratar de resolver un problema al afirmar una fuerza superior sobre una población. Comienzan con despojar personas de los derechos y la dignidad - como el derecho a la presunción de inocencia mientras no se pruebe su culpabilidad - que disfrutan. No porque es lo correcto, sino porque es posible. Y porque de alguna manera, se piensa que esto va a resolver un problema.

Sin embargo, cuando se desnuda a un hombre o una mujer de sus derechos humanos básicos, se los despoja de su dignidad a los ojos de su familia y su comunidad, e incluso ante sus propios ojos. Los inmigrantes que están acusados del delito de allanamiento, por el simple hecho de estar en una comunidad sin sus papeles con ellos, se le esta diciendo que está cometiendo un delito por el simple hecho de estar alli. Él o ella se sienten degradados y sienten que son de menos valor frente a los otros que tienen un color de piel diferente. Estas son las semillas del resentimiento, de las hostilidades y en los casos extremos, que generan los conflictos.

Estas "soluciones" no resuelven nada. Como ya se ha señalado, incluso para las gente en la fuerza policial, las nuevas leyes de Arizona dividiran a las comunidades y haran menos probable que la gente en las comunidades de inmigrantes trabajen con la policía. Se crearán condiciones favorables para una mayor criminalidad con las misma leyes que pretenden desarmarla.

Los latinos en Arizona no han llegado a Arizona porque quieren vivir en comunidades atormentada por la violencia y la delincuencia. Me imagino que los recién llegados han huido de sus pueblos de la frontera y de la creciente violencia de sus pueblos donde los señores de la droga han reforzado su control . Ellos quieren vivir y criar a sus hijos en paz, igual que tú o yo.

Estoy seguro de que, dada la oportunidad, los líderes de las comunidades de inmigrantes latinos en Arizona con entusiasmo trabajarian con el Estado para encontrar soluciones constructivas a estos problemas. Estoy muy seguro que les gustaría, tanto como a los demas, librar de Arizona de los contrabandistas de drogas, traficantes de seres humanos y otros elementos criminales que se infiltran en sus comunidades.

Sólo podemos esperar que esta ley sea expulsado de los tribunales en el corto plazo. No estoy en desacuerdo con los llamamientos a boicotear los negocios en el Estado hasta que esta situacion cambie.

En el ínterin, se ha abierto la puerta para que algunos dirigentes inteligentes lideres estatales se sienten a conversar con los líderes de la comunidad latina en Arizona y trabajar algunas soluciones que realmente funcionen. Esperemos que estas soluciones reconozcan la diferencia entre un traficante de drogas y un hombre que esta dispuesto a estar parado fuera de una estación de gasoline, en el calor del sol durante horas, con la esperanza de que alguien le dé algo de trabajo para el día.

El problema de la migración de la población no va a desaparecer en el corto plazo. Si alguien debe saber de esto, son los americanos, muchos de los cuales desembarcaron aquí para escapar de la persecución, el hambre o el conflicto. Con los ojos del mundo ahora en ellos, Arizona tiene la oportunidad de crear un nuevo modelo para hacer frente a las trampas, y ayudar a la nación como un todo ha encontrar su camino a través de los problemas de la inmigración ilegal. Pero en relacion el trabajo, debe ser un modelo que este basado en un profundo respeto por los derechos humanos esenciales propios que los americanos han crecido disfrutando.

VERSION EN INGLES :

by ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU I am saddened today at the prospect of a young Hispanic immigrant in Arizona going to the ...

by ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU

I am saddened today at the prospect of a young Hispanic immigrant in Arizona going to the grocery store and forgetting to bring her passport and immigration documents with her. I cannot be dispassionate about the fact that the very act of her being in the grocery store will soon be a crime in the state she lives in. Or that should a policeman hear her accent and form a "reasonable suspicion" that she is an illegal immigrant, she can – and will – be taken into custody until someone sorts it out, while her children are at home waiting for their dinner.

Equally disturbing is what will happen in the mind of the policeman. The police talk today about how they do not wish to, and will not, engage in racial profiling. Yet faced with the option of using common sense and compassion, or harassing a person who has done nothing wrong, a particularly sinister aspect of Arizona's new immigration law will be hanging over his head. He can be personally sued, by ANYONE, for failing to enforce this inhumane new act.

I recognize that Arizona has become a widening entry point for illegal immigration from the South. The wave has brought with it rising violence and drug smuggling.

But a solution that degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution. A solution that fails to distinguish between a young child coming over the border in search of his mother and a drug smuggler is not a solution.

I am not speaking from an ivory tower. I lived in the South Africa that has now thankfully faded into history, where a black man or woman could be grabbed off the street and thrown in jail for not having his or her documents on their person.

How far can this go? We lived it -- police waking a man up in the middle of the night and hauling him off to jail for not having his documents on his person while he slept. The fact that they were in his nightstand near the bed was not good enough.

Of course if you suggested such a possibility today to an Arizona policeman he would be adamant that he would never do such a thing. And I would believe him. Arizona is a long way from apartheid South Africa.

The problem is, under the new law, the one or two who WOULD do it are legitimized. All they have to say is that they believed that illegal immigrants were being harbored in the house. They would be protected and sanctioned by this 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. They start with trying to solve a problem by asserting superior force over a population. They start with stripping people of rights and dignity – such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty – that you yourself enjoy. Not because it is right, but because you can. And because somehow, you think this is going to solve a problem.

However, when you strip a man or a woman of their basic human rights, you strip them of their dignity in the eyes of their family and their community, and even in their own eyes. An immigrant who is charged with the crime of trespassing for simply being in a community without his papers on him is being told he is committing a crime by simply being. He or she feels degraded and feels they are of less worth than others of a different color skin. These are the seeds of resentment, hostilities and in extreme cases, conflict.

Such "solutions" solve nothing. As already pointed out, even by people on the police force, Arizona's new laws will split the communities, make it less likely that people in the immigrant communities will work with the police. They will create conditions favorable to the very criminals these laws are trying to disarm.

The Latinos in Arizona have not come to Arizona because they want to live in communities wracked with violence and crime. I would guess that the most recent arrivals have fled their border towns and the growing violence there as drug lords tightened their control of the communities. They want to live and raise their children in peace, just as you or I do.

I am certain that, given the chance, the leaders of the Latino immigrant communities in Arizona would enthusiastically work with the State to find constructive solutions to these problems. I am very sure that they would like, as much as others, to rid Arizona of the drug smugglers, human traffickers and other criminal elements infiltrating their communities.

We can only hope that this law will be thrown out of the courts in short order. I do not disagree with the calls to boycott the businesses in the State until it is turned around.

In the meantime, it has opened the door to some smart State leaders sitting down with the leaders of the Latino communities in Arizona and hammering out some solutions that actually work. Hopefully these solutions would recognize the difference between a drug smuggler and a man willing to stand outside a gas station in the hot sun for hours in the hopes that someone will give him some work for the day.

The problem of migrating populations is not going to go away any time soon. If anyone should know this, it should be Americans, many of whom landed here themselves to escape persecution, famine or conflict. With the eyes of the world now on them, Arizona has the opportunity to create a new model for dealing with the pitfalls, and help the nation as a whole find its way through the problems of illegal immigration. But to work, it must be a model that is based on a deep respect for the essential human rights Americans themselves have grown up enjoying.

admin is Email this author | All posts by admin | Topic: Articles, Desmond Tutu | Tags: Arizona, Desmond Tutu, immigration

Bookmark

14 Comments, Comment or Ping

1. kj190

I have to say that I am very disappointed in this article, and the tone that it takes. Archbishop Tutu states "I cannot be dispassionate about the fact that the very act of her being in the grocery store will soon be a crime in the state she lives in" - something that is completely untrue, assuming she is a legal immigrant. He later states: " An immigrant who is charged with the crime of trespassing for simply being in a community without his papers on him is being told he is committing a crime by simply being." Again - completely untrue - no immigrant would be charged with any crime, provided that the immigrant can provide proof of their right to be there.

When I lived in England, a young girl was assaulted in the lobby of my building. When the police canvassed the occupants of the building for information, and came across me (an American), they immediately asked for papers proving my right to be in the country - but they asked no one else in the building for their proof of residence. They made the decision to check into my background purely on the basis of my accent. If I had not been able to offer them my papers, I would have been detained until I could. And this was not a one-off situation - I travelled extensively for my company in the UK. Whenever I checked into a hotel with my business associates, I was the only one who was singled out to present my passport to get a room. If I did not provide it, a room would not be available to me - even though I was a legal resient of the UK at the time. Can I expect Archbishop Tutu to be calling for a boycott of UK businesses? Or possibly he could acknowledge that any government has the right to impose rules for legal immigration, and that individuals who choose to live under those governments legally will sometimes have to accept inconveniences like proving their immigration status.

28 Apr

2. brushy

Whether someone is a drug dealer or illegally in our country, they are both breaking the law. It is call illegal immegrants becasuse they are illegal. Drivers have to have drivers licenses. What an inconcienience to have to carry them. The difference is???

28 Apr

3. contrarian

One of poorest, illogical conclusions I've read yet on this debate. Fails to consider the destruction illegals have done to Arizona, the crime, kidnappings, drugs, killings of law enforcement, and more. What part of ILLEGAL don't we understand? All of these protests are carefully orchestrated and too many flatworms are falling for the hoaz.
Instead of wasting time on inflammatory actions, why aren't they working to make these folks legal citizens instead?
Why should anyone be granted immunity when a process exists for rectifying the situation...the CA governor didn't come to America illegally so how dare he call the legal actions of AZ immoral?

Mexico has laws about illegals that are much, much worse but I don't hear anyone whining about them. Illegals are good for the Mexican government because American taxpayers foot the bill for medical care, food stamps, schooling and so forth, thus relieving the government of Mexico of caring for their own population...after all "Everything is free in America," and despite the majority who favor the new AZ law, we're damned for it.

28 Apr

4. anthonyrhodes

I would have to say that I found this article to be very inspiring and true. Time and time again I have watched legislatures create and pass laws that are meant to solve an issue with out ever considering all sides of the issue. How do people expect to solve issues and strengthen our communities if they aren't willing to listen to each other and work together to find solutions.

Have you ever thought about what you would have to be going through to want to pick up your family leave most of your material positions behind and move to a completely different country?

I would have to feel very oppressed and believe that there was no other way for me to survive and obtain a better way of live than to leave my home uproot my family break the law and than live in constant fear of being sent back to my home in worse shape than I was to begin with.

It is so disheartening to me to see governments in our very own country institute such deliberate acts of racism!!! The state of Arizona has just made it institutionally okay to judge people by the color of their skin or by the sound of their voice or even just by a police officers opinion!!

As far as those who believe that illegal immigrants (only for the lack of a better term!!!) are the cause of increasing violence in communities I would like to see the creditable statistics on that, I have yet to see any real research that proves the true cause of rising violence is because of the fact that they are illegal immigrants. Couldn't it be because we allow companies to pay them less than a living wage so they live in areas were crime is more likely to happen? Is it because we like getting our oranges for less than a dollar a pound and there for they aren't able to fee their families and have to find other ways to get food?

I cant begin to understand how people can believe that any human being naturally resorts to violence. That theory goes against every root of human logic. Don't we all want to live in a secure environment were we can flourish and grow? Living in a violent environment denies the human being of that security and they will take drastic measures if they have to as a way to find security. Wouldn't as Archbishop TuTu has mentioned above we be getting a better return on our investment if we got to the root of the problem and started to create better ways for these "illegal immigrants" to come here the right way and have access to a secure community and living environment?

RED DEMOCRATICA
Fundado Dic. 1998 Lima-Peru

Lista Debate :Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion/messages
BLOG : Http://reddemocratica.blogspot.com
Facebook : Red Democratica http://www.facebook.com/editprofile.php?sk=basic&success=1#!/
Twitter : Http://twitter.com/red_democratica
Boletin diario : Http://reddemocratica01.blogspot.com

Comentarios a :red_democratica@yahoo.com

Keep the candle burning 2011 !

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

Red Democratica 10 years "On line" (1998-2008)!
Http://reddemocratica.blogspot.com
Boletin Diario :
Http://reddemocratica01.blogspot.com
Foro Debate :
Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion

Ahora en FACEBOOK : Red Democratica

Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1631/articulos/protesta.phtml
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1612/articulos/debate.phtml

Celebrando 10 anos "On Line"..2009

Keep the candle burning

I have a dream
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/interactiveFrame.htm

FORUM TPSIPOL: RED DEMOCRATICA (1998-1999).
Informacion : Http://tpsipol.home-page.org

Para enviar un message , enviar a: eleccion@yahoogroups.com
Para suscribirse al Forum , enviar un mensaje a : eleccion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Para salir del Forum, enviar un mensaje en blanco : eleccion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com