Obama administration to sue Arizona. [Archive]

MikeMangum

17th June 2010, 04:15 PM

In other words, 1) requiring state and city police officers to act like Federal officers, and 2) usurping the Federal Government's power to punish those that refuse (or fail) to enforce Federal immigration laws as the Federal government sees fit.

They aren't usurping any powers at all. They are requring municipalities to inform ICE (an arm of the federal government) that they have an illegal alien. ICE takes it from there - or doesn't. That's up to ICE. And yes, a state government can indeed impose requirements on inferior governments, as long as those requirements do not violate the Consitution of the US or the Constitution of the state. The state is not actually enforcing Federal immigration law; it is simply passing illegal immigrants on to ICE for ICE to enforce the law. Or not to, as it chooses. If ICE simply says "we don't want them", Arizona would have to release them unless they had some non-immigration related crime to charge them with. That exact thing happens frequently already: a state or municipality will inform ICE that it holding an illegal immigrant, ICE doesn't respond within some threshold amount of time (which I can't remember), the state or municipality has to release the illegal immigrant it is holding. It happens all the time. This would merely (at least, it's the hope of authors of the law) increase the number of illegal immigrants that are held for that threshold amount of time waiting for ICE to respond.

Can't imagine why they have a problem with that. This has less to do with "the Obama administration" and a whole lot to do with setting precedents that weaken Federal power. Let's just hope this time round the folks here don't start firing on Fort Huachuca over this.

This does absolutely nothing to weaken Federal power. The Federal government can choose to simply not enforce it's own immigration law, or it can change that law at whim. Nothing Arizona does requires the Federal government to act in any way. ICE can, for instance, simply refuse to accept or deport any illegals from Arizona (or from any state for that matter). Congress can, for instance, simply pass an amnesty or otherwise change immigrations laws. Nothing that the Arizona law does minimizes Federal power. It might very well pose a political problem, but that is different. The political problem is that there will be political consequences if Arizona is sending tons of Illegals to ICE and ICE does nothing.

In fact, the head of ICE has come right out and said that they won't process (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/transcript/arizona-immigration-law-fuels-inflammatory-response-ice) illegals from Arizona.

The head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, or ICE, told the Chicago Tribune editorial board his agency would not necessarily process any illegals arrested in Arizona.

...

Now about this, the DHS released a statement late this afternoon, saying, quote, "Across the country we exercise lawful discretion in order to focus our efforts on violent and dangerous criminal in order to make our streets safer. The president ordered the DOJ to examine the civil rights and other implications of the Arizona law, and that review will inform the government's actions going forward."

In other words, "we don't want to enforce the law as written, don't embarrass us by making noise about how we aren't enforcing the law because that will cause political problems for us".

I happen to agree with DHS that deporting every illegal immigrant found in the US would be very problematic and that we should instead focus on those arrested for some crime other than simply an immigration violation, but the Federal immigration law doesn't just apply to those arrested for other crimes; it applies to all immigrants here illegally.

If the Federal government doesn't actually want to deport illegal immigrants who have not committed a violent crime, the law should be changed to reflect that. Of course, doing so would have substantial political consequences. There are many people in DC who want to NOT enforce the law to gain support from one constituency while not antagonizing another constituency by making their desires official government policy. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

If Arizona was deporting illegal immigrants, that would be an encroachment on Federal power. If Arizona was holding people who weren't defined by Federal law as illegal immigrants on immigration charges, that would be encroachment on Federal power. Arizona is doing neither.

Piscivore

17th June 2010, 04:17 PM

If the Federal government doesn't actually want to deport illegal immigrants who have not committed a violent crime, the law should be changed to reflect that. Of course, doing so would have substantial political consequences. There are many people in DC who want to NOT enforce the law to gain support from one constituency while not antagonizing another constituency by making their desires official government policy. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
I'll agree with that.

Piscivore

17th June 2010, 04:27 PM

They aren't usurping any powers at all.

The state is not actually enforcing Federal immigration law

11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.
23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G
24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN
25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND
26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
It makes it a crime, punishable by law, to not enforce Federal law to "less than the full extent" That's not the state's job.

MikeMangum

17th June 2010, 04:29 PM

I happen to be someone who really, really hates selective enforcement of laws because selective enforcement of laws is one of the big sources of abuses of power. On general principle I do not like the head of ICE saying that they will purposefully selectively enforce the law. If Congress passed a law that amended current immigration law to specify that only those illegal immigrants convicted of a felony were to be deported, I might even support such a law. I don't know, I'd have to think about it. But the law is what it is. If the law is acceptable and doesn't need to be changed, it should be fully enforced. If there is a problem with the law, it should be changed. How that impacts someone's political career, I don't give a donkey's bollocks.

Piscivore

17th June 2010, 04:35 PM

I happen to be someone who really, really hates selective enforcement of laws because selective enforcement of laws is one of the big sources of abuses of power.
On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of Zero-tolerance. :)

On general principle I do not like the head of ICE saying that they will purposefully selectively enforce the law. If Congress passed a law that amended current immigration law to specify that only those illegal immigrants convicted of a felony were to be deported, I might even support such a law.
I would. In fact I do.

If the law is acceptable and doesn't need to be changed, it should be fully enforced.
No law is so perfect that exceptions are never in order.

If there is a problem with the law, it should be changed. How that impacts someone's political career, I don't give a donkey's bollocks.
Agreed.

MikeMangum

17th June 2010, 04:44 PM

It makes it a crime, punishable by law, to not enforce Federal law to "less than the full extent" That's not the state's job.

It makes it a crime, punishable by law, for a municipality to, as a matter of policy, ignore Federal law.

Arizona is not making anyone enforce Federal. IT CAN'T DO THAT, nor does it attemp to do that. Notice that it doesn't criminalize "failure to enforce Federal immigration law", it says "ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW."

It is criminalizing, in essence, obstruction of justice. More specifically, willfull policies of inferior governments that obstruct enforcement of Federal law.

Where in the statue does it require it a municipality to actually prosecute someone for an immigration violation? Or deport them? Or apply any other punitive action? That's what "enforcement" entails.

A state can require municipalities to inform ICE of illegals. It can also require municipalities to check the residency status of all people who are arrested. Neither of those is "enforcement" of Federal immigration law.

I guess private employers being required to get your social security number before hiring you makes them "enforcers" of Federal tax law.

Piscivore

17th June 2010, 05:07 PM

It makes it a crime, punishable by law, for a municipality to, as a matter of policy, ignore Federal law.

Arizona is not making anyone enforce Federal. IT CAN'T DO THAT, nor does it attemp to do that. Notice that it doesn't criminalize "failure to enforce Federal immigration law", it says "ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW."
Meaning, whatever priorities you may think your community requires, enforcing Federal immigration law is now job #1.

No other federal law, just immigration.

If the state, or someone in the state, objects to how the Federal government or their agencies enforce Federal law, it needs to be taken up with the Feds, not making it a crime to not have state and city law enforcement arrest everyone they can for a Federal crime.

It is criminalizing, in essence, obstruction of justice. More specifically, willfull policies of inferior governments that obstruct enforcement of Federal law.
No, it is criminalising enforcing the law to "LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED".

Where in the statue does it require it a municipality to actually prosecute someone for an immigration violation? Or deport them? Or apply any other punitive action? That's what "enforcement" entails.
Ask the guy that wrote the law and used the word "enforcement" throughout. He does not seem to agree with your interpretation.

I guess private employers being required to get your social security number before hiring you makes them "enforcers" of Federal tax law.
Yes, it does. Including penalties for not doing it. How would you like the state to make your local police responsible- including penalties for not doing so to "less than the full extent permitted"- for verifying the tax status of anyone it arrests, and turning those they suspect of tax fraud over to the IRS for auditing- or not- as they see fit, and punishing those employers that do not enforce their part of the tax code in excess of the Federal penalties?

bynmdsue

17th June 2010, 08:50 PM

Spoke too soon Hillaryhttp://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/politics/immigration-law-clinton-6-17-2010

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 01:59 PM

Confirmed:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/18/obama-administration-file-suit-arizona-immigration-law/

Obama Administration Planning to File Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

Talk about Stuck On Stupid :rolleyes:

bynmdsue

18th June 2010, 02:00 PM

Guess Hillary let the cat out of the bag

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 02:12 PM

According to a Washington Post poll,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_060810.html?sid=ST2010061700014

58% of Americans support (42% strongly support) the Arizona law. Only 41% oppose the law. And given that this is a WP poll, the real percentages are probably even more supportive of the Arizona law than that. So once again, we find the Obama administration acting contrary to the views of Americans. See what I mean about Stuck On Stupid?

drkitten

18th June 2010, 02:20 PM

See what I mean about Stuck On Stupid?

BAC, every time you post you give an example of how American conservatives are Stuck on Stupid.

The Painter

18th June 2010, 02:24 PM

If the government is going to ignore it's own laws, I just wish that it would be the tax laws.

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 02:44 PM

BAC, every time you post you give an example of how American conservatives are Stuck on Stupid.

Why?

Because I believe what a clear majority of Americans believe?

Or because I find it hilarious that the Obama administration is going to sue Arizona over a law that is identical to the Federal law? :D

Piscivore

18th June 2010, 02:52 PM

Why?

Because I believe what a clear majority of Americans believe?

You think a majority can't be stupid? That's the whole reason politics works.

drkitten

18th June 2010, 03:00 PM

Because I believe what a clear majority of Americans believe?

No, in this case, because you think that whether or not "a clear majority of Americans" agree with something is in any way relevant to whether or not it's legal.

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 03:00 PM

You think a majority can't be stupid?

So you think the majority is stupid in this case? Just because they want Federal law enforced? How far does that theory extend? :D

The Painter

18th June 2010, 03:00 PM

You think a majority can't be stupid? That's the whole reason politics works.

Of course they can. That's how Obama got elected.

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 03:02 PM

No, in this case, because you think that whether or not "a clear majority of Americans" agree with something is in any way relevant to whether or not it's legal.

LOL! Does the fact that the Arizona law is IDENTICAL to Federal law mean anything to you regarding legality? :D

drkitten

18th June 2010, 03:13 PM

LOL! Does the fact that the Arizona law is IDENTICAL to Federal law mean anything to you regarding legality? :D

Not really. There's this little thing called a "Constitution," you see, and it outlines some things that would be legal if done by the Fed but would be illegal if done by a state. And vice versa, of course.

For example, if Arizona were to declare war on Mexico, that would be illegal. Or if Arizona were to coin its own money.

And, oddly enough, immigration policy is one of the powers reserved exclusively for the Federal government.

So, no, that particular "fact" is irrelevant in this instance, because Arizona doesn't have the authority to set immigration policy,.... even to set it to be identical to what you think Federal immigration policy is.

And now you see part of why I consider you Stuck on Stupid. Because you can't get basic facts like federal supremacy correct.....

Piscivore

18th June 2010, 03:42 PM

So you think the majority is stupid in this case? Just because they want Federal law enforced? How far does that theory extend? :D

I think the majority of humans are stupid in most cases, partisan politics being the loudest and most obvious symptom of it.

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Does the fact that the Arizona law is IDENTICAL to Federal law mean anything to you regarding legality?

Not really.

:rolleyes:

immigration policy is one of the powers reserved exclusively for the Federal government.

LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

This has nothing to do with immigration "policy" … which pertains to who is legal and who is not. Arizona isn't saying who can legally come into America. That power is reserved to the Federal government. They are simply going to enforce the same rules established by Federal law regarding illegal immigrants. The Arizona law is no more and no less stringent than the one of the Federal books. And such laws are allowed to the states. That has been established by numerous precedents.

For example,

http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/WalterMooreSays.com/Blog/Entries/2010/4/30_Arizona_Police_Can_Enforce_Federal_Immigration_ Law.html

In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.”* Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.

In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’* On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.

In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United* States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 1 Fed. Appx. 827, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."

in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.

In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.

There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Arizona from doing this. As you'll soon find out if (and that's a big if) the Obama administration actually does sue Arizona over this. You simply don't know what you are talking about (which isn't unusual). :D

By the way, the fact that the Obama administration knows all the above is why they haven't already filed suit against Arizona. Which is why this latest slip by Hillary is probably nothing more than more empty rhetoric designed to keep the more radical portion of their Hispanic base happy … at least until after the November elections. They must figure they can fool them that long at least, and then hope they'll forget by the next election … as democrats often do. :D

rwguinn

18th June 2010, 03:42 PM

Not really. There's this little thing called a "Constitution," you see, and it outlines some things that would be legal if done by the Fed but would be illegal if done by a state. And vice versa, of course.

For example, if Arizona were to declare war on Mexico, that would be illegal. Or if Arizona were to coin its own money.

And, oddly enough, immigration policy is one of the powers reserved exclusively for the Federal government.

So, no, that particular "fact" is irrelevant in this instance, because Arizona doesn't have the authority to set immigration policy,.... even to set it to be identical to what you think Federal immigration policy is.

And now you see part of why I consider you Stuck on Stupid. Because you can't get basic facts like federal supremacy correct.....
None of which is relevant, since Arizona didn't do anything but require Enforcement of Existing Federal Law.

Not withstanding, your assessment of BAC's ilk is, IMO, correct.

Piscivore

18th June 2010, 03:45 PM

Of course they can. That's how Obama got elected.

And Bush, and Nixon, and Reagan, and Carter, and Arthur, and Grant... etc.

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 03:50 PM

BAC's ilk

LOL!

And what would be your "ilk"? Out of curiosity. :)

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 04:06 PM

While the worldview of the USA is improving since the dark days of GWB, the Obama factor does not seem to be working with Mexico. Who thinks the Arizona bigots are the cause of this?

I do.

Piscivore

18th June 2010, 04:09 PM

Kthulhut Fhtagn

18th June 2010, 04:31 PM

For example, if Arizona were to declare war on Mexico, that would be illegal.

Right you are

Or if Arizona were to coin its own money.

Ummm...no that's not entirely accurate. Arizona isn't allowed to print a currency that looks like federal currency or state that the currency is considered legal tender by the federal government. Scrip became a somewhat popular form of currency for local government during this recession because it allowed consumers to purchase local currency at a discount and spend the full value at participating businesses.

And, oddly enough, immigration policy is one of the powers reserved exclusively for the Federal government.

Correct, but I don't see how this Arizona law has violated federal authority. If you can show me that the law allows Arizona to carry out deportations or that they plan on carrying deportations out regardless then please show me and I'll quickly change my position. Reporting illegals to ICE seems rather harmless to me, though I am wondering what Arizona plans on doing with these illegals if ICE won't deport them.

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 04:39 PM

though I am wondering what Arizona plans on doing with these illegals if ICE won't deport them.

I suggest giving them a one-way bus ticket to Los Angeles or Sacramento ... or even better ... Washington DC. :D

dtugg

18th June 2010, 04:44 PM

Kthulhut Fhtagn

18th June 2010, 04:47 PM

Well, actually, I wouldn't find that shocking. Not too safe for work below...some swears. :covereyes

NSFW (http://www.hockeyzombie.com/332/2008/10/19/)

Piscivore

18th June 2010, 04:54 PM

If wanting to enforce the law makes one a bigot, then I suppose the majority of Americans are bigots.

Do you feel the same measures should be taken to make sure that Federal tax law is enforced?

dtugg

18th June 2010, 04:58 PM

Do you feel the same measures should be taken to make sure that Federal tax law is enforced?

I wouldn't really care. But I doubt it would be something that the states would be interested in doing because federal tax cheats don't really affect them while illegal aliens residing in their state do.

dtugg

18th June 2010, 05:02 PM

Plus, I imagine the IRS does a much better job of enforcing tax laws than ICE does of enforcing immigration laws.

Drysdale

18th June 2010, 05:46 PM

Why is Hillary talking about this anyway?

Should'nt Holder be the one stating this?

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 05:46 PM

If wanting to enforce the law makes one a bigot, then I suppose the majority of Americans are bigots.

Certainly the ones in charge in AZ seem to be.

Piscivore

18th June 2010, 05:49 PM

I wouldn't really care.
Why not, if it about "enforcing the law"?

But I doubt it would be something that the states would be interested in doing because federal tax cheats don't really affect them while illegal aliens residing in their state do.
Presumably people not paying their Fed taxes are not paying their state taxes either, right?

dtugg

18th June 2010, 05:52 PM

Certainly the ones in charge in AZ seem to be.

The majority of Americans agree with those in charge in AZ. Therefore, the majority of Americans are bigots, yes?

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 05:56 PM

The majority of Americans agree with those in charge in AZ. Therefore, the majority of Americans are bigots, yes?

You tell me. Those Americans did not write that statute. A bigot wrote the statute. Brewer is a bigot too. I do not meet too many like them in my travels. Luckily.

PS - Did the US vote on whether they agreed with AZ? I must have missed it.

dtugg

18th June 2010, 05:56 PM

Why not, if it about "enforcing the law"?

I don't really care about this law either. I just don't understand how enforcing the law makes Arizona a bunch of bigots.

Presumably people not paying their Fed taxes are not paying their state taxes either, right?

Good point. The state should go after people who are state tax cheats and if they also happen to be federal tax cheats, report them to the IRS.

dtugg

18th June 2010, 05:59 PM

You tell me. Those Americans did not write that statute. A bigot wrote the statute. Brewer is a bigot too. I do not meet too many like them in my travels. Luckily.

PS - Did the US vote on whether they agreed with AZ? I must have missed it.

So most Americans just happen to agree with those supposed bigots? Oh, and there was a poll cited earlier which shows that they do.

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 06:00 PM

PS - Did the US vote on whether they agreed with AZ? I must have missed it.

Polls indicate that if US citizens were asked to vote on the AZ law, they'd pass it.

And we already know that the Federal government passed a law that is for all intents and purposes identical. You didn't miss that, did you?

Piscivore

18th June 2010, 06:18 PM

I don't really care about this law either. I just don't understand how enforcing the law makes Arizona a bunch of bigots.
Because most of the people living here that are all of a sudden deeply concerned about "enforcing the law" only care about enforcing this law. Because we don't have anyone proposing that we enforce any other Federal laws in the extreme manner they want this law enforced.

Good point. The state should go after people who are state tax cheats and if they also happen to be federal tax cheats, report them to the IRS.

Do you think it should be the duty of sate and city law enforcement to determine if someone is a Federal tax cheat before doing so?

Do you think that enforcing Federal tax law should be a priority for state an city law enforcement agencies?

Do you think state and city law enforcement agency leaders should be criminally punished for setting policies that may shift enforcement priorities away from enforcing Federal tax law, regardless of the needs of the community?

Do you think state law should seek to prevent people from getting a job unless they can prove they are not a Federal tax cheat?

rwguinn

18th June 2010, 06:27 PM

Because most of the people living here that are all of a sudden deeply concerned about "enforcing the law" only care about enforcing this law. Because we don't have anyone proposing that we enforce any other Federal laws in the extreme manner they want this law enforced.

Do you think it should be the duty of sate and city law enforcement to determine if someone is a Federal tax cheat before doing so?

Do you think that enforcing Federal tax law should be a priority for state an city law enforcement agencies?

Do you think state and city law enforcement agency leaders should be criminally punished for setting policies that may shift enforcement priorities away from enforcing Federal tax law, regardless of the needs of the community?

Do you think state law should seek to prevent people from getting a job unless they can prove they are not a Federal tax cheat?
Be careful. It's storm season, and a lightning strike can cause all that straw you're stacking to catch fire and do damage.

dtugg

18th June 2010, 06:31 PM

Because most of the people living here that are all of a sudden deeply concerned about "enforcing the law" only care about enforcing this law. Because we don't have anyone proposing that we enforce any other Federal laws in the extreme manner they want this law enforced.

Yeah, I am sure that the fact that illegal immigration causes the state problems and the fact that the feds do a piss poor job of enforcing the law by themselves has nothing to do with it.

Do you think it should be the duty of sate and city law enforcement to determine if someone is a Federal tax cheat before doing so?

Do you think that enforcing Federal tax law should be a priority for state an city law enforcement agencies?

Do you think state and city law enforcement agency leaders should be criminally punished for setting policies that may shift enforcement priorities away from enforcing Federal tax law, regardless of the needs of the community?

Do you think state law should seek to prevent people from getting a job unless they can prove they are not a Federal tax cheat?

If you can establish that federal tax cheats cause the state problems and that the federal government does a horrible job of enforcing the law, the analogy might be apt.

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 07:00 PM

Polls indicate that if US citizens were asked to vote on the AZ law, they'd pass it.

Polls then. Not as dtugg claimed.

And we already know that the Federal government passed a law that is for all intents and purposes identical. You didn't miss that, did you?

when did they pass it and is it exactly the same?

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 07:01 PM

So most Americans just happen to agree with those supposed bigots? Oh, and there was a poll cited earlier which shows that they do.

False claim again.

dtugg

18th June 2010, 07:08 PM

Polls then. Not as dtugg claimed.

I never claimed otherwise. Perhaps you don't understand what a poll is. It is where they ask a bunch of people questions and the results can be extrapolated to whole population. This one showed that 58% of Americans support Arizona's new law.

False claim again.

Nope. Unless in your universe, 58% somehow does not equal most.

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 07:20 PM

I never claimed otherwise. Perhaps you don't understand what a poll is. It is where they ask a bunch of people questions and the results can be extrapolated to whole population. This one showed that 58% of Americans support Arizona's new law.

Exactly it is a poll. It is not the opinion of the American people. They do not agree with anyone. A poll suggests some of them do.

Thats not what you said.

Nope. Unless in your universe, 58% somehow does not equal most.

In my universe when you make a claim you word it correctly.

So most Americans just happen to agree with those supposed bigots?

I note you do not disagree with the fact the guy who wrote it is a bigot?

dtugg

18th June 2010, 07:23 PM

Exactly it is a poll. It is not the opinion of the American people. They do not agree with anyone. A poll suggests some of them do.

Thats not what you said.

In my universe when you make a claim you word it correctly.

So you were just quibbling over semantics. Got it.

I note you do not disagree with the fact the guy who wrote it is a bigot?

I dunno. Maybe he is. Maybe he is not. Don't really know much about him. Anyway, polls suggest that most Americans agree with him.

JoeTheJuggler

18th June 2010, 07:27 PM

LOL! Does the fact that the Arizona law is IDENTICAL to Federal law mean anything to you regarding legality? :D

First, it's not identical. You can read Arizona SB 1070 and compare it Title 8 of the U.S.C. They are clearly not identical. Especially since the primary subject of Arizona's law are the duties of state and local police.

Second, ever since we did away with the Articles of Confederation, we have a system where the states are not in fact sovereign nations, and the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution notes that federal law is "the supreme law of the land". States cannot rewrite Federal law. There are points where the Arizona law conflicts with Federal law.

Here's a good summary of the legal issues the Fed will probably raise in their suit:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizonas-immigration-law-supremacy-and-federal-preemption.html

JoeTheJuggler

18th June 2010, 07:29 PM

So most Americans just happen to agree with those supposed bigots? Oh, and there was a poll cited earlier which shows that they do.

Polls indicate that if US citizens were asked to vote on the AZ law, they'd pass it.

And we already know that the Federal government passed a law that is for all intents and purposes identical. You didn't miss that, did you?

And popular sentiment still is not a legal argument. I guarantee you, the court will not consider such polls in this lawsuit.

Logically, it's the bandwagon fallacy.

The fact that this law is popular is no more justification for it than the popularity of slavery justified that institution.

dtugg

18th June 2010, 07:35 PM

And popular sentiment still is not a legal argument. I guarantee you, the court will not consider such polls in this lawsuit.

Logically, it's the bandwagon fallacy.

The fact that this law is popular is no more justification for it than the popularity of slavery justified that institution.

Since I never said that the popular sentiment should have anything to do with the lawsuit, this is a strawman. I was just asking if it meant that most Americans are bigots.

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 07:37 PM

So you were just quibbling over semantics. Got it.

I was quibbling over an incorrect claim.

I dunno. Maybe he is. Maybe he is not. Don't really know much about him. Anyway, polls suggest that most Americans agree with him.

Most agree with the bigot? On what do they agree with? This stupid law or all his other bigotted views?

I find it unsurprising supporters of the law want to avoid the guy who apparently wrote it.

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 07:38 PM

Since I never said that the popular sentiment should have anything to do with the lawsuit, this is a strawman. I was just asking if it meant that most Americans are bigots.

Which is a strawman.

JoeTheJuggler

18th June 2010, 07:38 PM

Since I never said that the popular sentiment should have anything to do with the lawsuit, this is a strawman. I was just asking if it meant that most Americans are bigots.

In the context of a thread whose topic is a lawsuit.

ETA: So in this context, you are defending the Arizona law. Since you enjoy casting your arguments in the form of "just asking questions" let me ask you, do you think the Fed's lawsuit has merit or not? What does popular opinion have to do with the lawsuit?

I made no strawman argument.

dtugg

18th June 2010, 07:51 PM

I was quibbling over an incorrect claim.

Semantics. You (at least should have) known what I was saying.

Most agree with the bigot? On what do they agree with? This stupid law or all his other bigotted views?

Obviously, I am talking about "this stupid law."

I find it unsurprising supporters of the law want to avoid the guy who apparently wrote it.

Why would I even know anything about him? He is just some state legislator in a state I don't even live in.

Which is a strawman.

No, it's a question. I don't know if you or anybody else holds that view, which is why I was asking.

dtugg

18th June 2010, 07:52 PM

In the context of a thread whose topic is a lawsuit.

I am not the one who brought up people being bigots.

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 07:54 PM

when did they pass it and is it exactly the same?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65340

One of the men who helped write Arizona’s new immigration law said he’s confident it will withstand legal challenges, ... snip ... Kobach is a constitutional law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and served as chief adviser to former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration law and border security.

Kobach said criticism that the Arizona law will impose new requirements on non-citizens to carry documents proving their status is unfounded, given that every non-citizen in the United States has been required to carry such documents since Congress passed the Alien Registration Act in 1940.

... snip ...

All the new bill does is make Arizona law mirror federal immigration law, Kobach said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/28/george-will/will-says-arizona-law-merely-echoes-federal-immigr/

But conservative columnist George Will said on ABC's This Week that the new law only reiterates federal crimes.

"What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is a crime, a federal crime," he said.

... snip ...

The legal scholars we spoke with told us to take a close look at two key sections of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Section 1304e requires that "every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him." Those who fail to comply will be guilty of a misdemeanor and will be fined $100 and can be imprisoned up to 30 days.

Section 1306a says that, "Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

Indeed, section 3 of the new Arizona law makes it a state crime if immigrants are in violation of either of those codes.

So, when it comes to that section of the law -- arguably the "meat" of the new law -- "it's very clear that in this respect, George Will is right," said Paul Bender, a law professor at Arizona State University.

Gabriel Chin, a professor of law at the University of Arizona, had a similar take. In an e-mail, he wrote that Will's claim is generally correct.

"However, while the underlying offenses are federal crimes, they are among the least prosecuted in the U.S. Code," he wrote. "For the relevant offense at issue here, failure of a non-citizen to register in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1306(a), there were five convictions across the U.S. in FY 2008. So to be precise, the statement would be 'What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is . . . a federal crime that the federal authorities have chosen not to enforce except in rare circumstances.'"

... snip ...

There are other parts of the new law that also overlap with federal statute. For instance, section 5 of the Arizona law, which deals with the transportation of non-citizens, is nearly identical to section 1324 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

However, the Arizona law does break new ground. For example, Section 5 also would make it illegal to pick up day laborers on the street for hire, "which has nothing to do with federal law. It's essentially a traffic law," Chin wrote. Those violating this section are guilty of a misdemeanor. And it also makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to solicit work.
Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, pointed out another aspect of the bill that she finds particularly troubling: Section 2 of the Arizona law would allow citizens to sue local and state authorities if they do not believe the new law was being enforced effectively. State and local authorities could be fined between $1,000 and $5,000 a day for each day the policy remains in effect.

The bill also includes new language about how the law applies to employers and specifies the circumstances under which an officer can question and arrest someone he or she thinks is in violation of the law.

But Will was talking about crimes. He said that the the new Arizona immigration law makes what is already a federal crime into a state crime. And when it comes to some of the most talked about parts of the law, having to do with aliens who fail to carry proper paperwork and failing to register, Will is correct about the core of the law; federal statutes already makes those two provisions a crime. But the law also includes a new prohibition barring picking up day laborers on the street for hire and soliciting for work. That's not in the federal code. As a result, we find Will's claim to be Mostly True.

And by the way, because of the boycott from California, someone noticed that California law is almost identical to the Arizona law in the key points (in blue below) under contention? So why didn't the Obama administration file suit against California earlier? Here:

http://hoguenews.com/?p=10263

Arizona Law

NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE (1. see note one in the Ca code below). WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

(2) THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAYSECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY’S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

Here is the California Code:

834b.
(1) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(2) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

In fact, you might notice that the California law is even more severe than the Arizona law in several respects. :D

JoeTheJuggler

18th June 2010, 07:58 PM

I am not the one who brought up people being bigots.

You're the one who brought up the polls of popular opinion about the law in the context of a discussion of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law. That's exactly what I responded to.

The polls are irrelevant to the lawsuit.

Please answer the series of questions I added in the ETA to my previous post.

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 08:03 PM

So, it is not identical. It cannot overrule Federal law. The federal law was passed in 1940. So none of dtuggs American majority voted on it.

And the California law is different. Try reading the blue parts again.

Fail.

JoeTheJuggler

18th June 2010, 08:08 PM

Again, the challenge is likely to be based on the supremacy clause. The Federal law that concerns the treatment is Title 8 of the U.S.C. It is meant to be the entire law on the matter, and to establish a uniform law for the entire United States for this field. So under the supremacy clause, the Arizona law would be invalid (and that's how I predict the suit will eventually be decided).

The other main point (as outlined in the article I quoted above) is that there are points (at least one that made it into the final law) where the Arizona law conflicts with the Federal law. (Specifically, while the Federal law only authorizes state and local police to arrest or detain an illegal if there is a prior felony, the Arizona law allows them to do so without a prior felony.) Again, under the supremacy clause, the Arizona law would be invalid.

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 08:10 PM

Semantics. You (at least should have) known what I was saying.

Accuracy man.

Obviously, I am talking about "this stupid law."

OK

Why would I even know anything about him? He is just some state legislator in a state I don't even live in.

It does not matter what views the writer may have? That would not affect your thoughts on why something was introduced?

No, it's a question. I don't know if you or anybody else holds that view, which is why I was asking.

The majority of Americans agree with those in charge in AZ. Therefore, the majority of Americans are bigots, yes?

You made a statement. Asking me to agree. With a false claim.

Obama will beat the bigots.

dtugg

18th June 2010, 08:13 PM

You're the one who brought up the polls of popular opinion about the law in the context of a discussion of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law. That's exactly what I responded to.

No I brought it up in response to the allegation that funk de finos allegation that the Obama effect isn't happening in Mexico because of the "bigots in Arizona" Please read what I actually posted.

The polls are irrelevant to the lawsuit.

Never said otherwise.

Please answer the series of questions I added in the ETA to my previous post.[/QUOTE]

OK.

In the context of a thread whose topic is a lawsuit.

ETA: So in this context, you are defending the Arizona law. Since you enjoy casting your arguments in the form of "just asking questions" let me ask you, do you think the Fed's lawsuit has merit or not?

I don't know. There might be specific points where AZ law is in conflict with federal law.

What does popular opinion have to do with the lawsuit?

I made no strawman argument.

It doesn't. Never said it did. That is the very definition of a strawman.

funk de fino

18th June 2010, 08:20 PM

No, your saying wanting to enforce a law made you a bigot because that is what my argument apparently meant, was a strawman.

rbanks1

18th June 2010, 08:27 PM

While the worldview of the USA is improving since the dark days of GWB, the Obama factor does not seem to be working with Mexico. Who thinks the Arizona bigots are the cause of this?

I do.

I am a resident of southern Arizona. I have many friends who happen to reside in the northern border towns of Sonora, Mexico. We are not bigots in any sense of the word here. When was the last time you walked out into your front yard and found a group of people dying from dehydration, driven like cattle by a "Coyote" smuggler who himself, is in bad shape and in need of medical attention, and water? I had this situation happen just over two weeks ago. My neighbor saw the situation and also helped. Do you have proof that I, or my neighbors at other ranch properties denied people water, food, and medical attention because they are just "spics"? If we are racist bigots, we would have just let them die, right?

There are a bunch of honest, good people who cross the border every day, and there are some, who are not good people at all who make their living out of victimizing their fellow citizens with a "safe trip" north, which far too often ends in death.

My point is, the people I know, are not bigots in any sense of the word. Southern Arizona is caught in a crisis of criminal activity that is causing the deaths of some American citizens, and a horrific number of Mexican citizens. The federal government has sat on it's hands for years, and has done next to nothing to enforce the law. Something has to be done, and be it the right policy, or the wrong one, at least Arizona is actually doing something.

Your generalization that Arizona residents or our elected representatives are bigots, is way off the mark.

rbanks1

JoeTheJuggler

18th June 2010, 08:48 PM

No I brought it up in response to the allegation that funk de finos allegation that the Obama effect isn't happening in Mexico because of the "bigots in Arizona"
So by "no" you mean to say you didn't bring up polls and popular sentiment in the context of a thread about the federal lawsuit?

You're not serious, are you? Look at the title of the thread.

I don't know. There might be specific points where AZ law is in conflict with federal law.
Ah, so you would agree with the Federal government's lawsuit that will seek to strike down the Arizona law under a preemption challenge?

It sure sounded like you were trying to defend the law and not the Fed's case against it.

It doesn't. Never said it did. That is the very definition of a strawman.
You're wrong. A strawman argument is when you argue against a weak or easily defeated version of your opponent's position. If you weren't raising the polls and popularity of the law as some sort of defense of the law, then your post was simply off topic.

I made no strawman argument. I'm trying to discuss the issue of the lawsuit. See the thread title. Once again, I guarantee that if the defense tries to introduce evidence of popular support for the law, the court will not allow it. It's irrelevant to the lawsuit.

I would like to discuss the arguments the lawsuit will likely raise: that is Federal preemption and the supremacy clause.

Others have raised 14th Amendment issues, but I think the amendments to the Arizona law probably addressed them (though I think there are reasonable arguments to be made that say they did resolve those issues and would be glad to discuss those as well).

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 08:50 PM

First, it's not identical. You can read Arizona SB 1070 and compare it Title 8 of the U.S.C.

See my post above. For all intents and purposes, it's identical.

Second, ever since we did away with the Articles of Confederation, we have a system where the states are not in fact sovereign nations, and the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution notes that federal law is "the supreme law of the land". States cannot rewrite Federal law. There are points where the Arizona law conflicts with Federal law.

First of all, I don't believe there are any points where the Arizona law actually "conflicts" with Federal law. It may contain a few provisions not in the Federal law, but none actually "conflict" with the provisions in the Federal law, nor with what was the intended purpose of the Federal law.

Second, many state laws, particularly environmental ones … like those in California, are more strict than Federal law, yet those aren't viewed as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Why not? And if that's allowed, why can't a state pass a law that imposes even harsher penalties in this case?

Third, the Supremacy Clause only applies if enforcement of the state law would frustrate what were federal intentions in the Federal law. This law clearly does not. It might frustrate the intentions of the Obama administration, but not the law as written and passed long before the Obama adminstration.

Fourth, (and I thank http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23919 for the following) the Supremacy Clause only applies to enumerated powers in which the Federal government is given exclusive jurisdiction. Alexander Hamilton made this very clear in the Federalist papers No 27 (last paragraph), 32 (next to last paragraph) and 33 (second paragraph). Furthermore, Hamilton stated (Federalist paper No 32, third paragraph) that even where the Constitution delegates power to the Federal government, the states retain a concurrent and coequal authority over the same matter unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the states from exercising that power.

Now Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 reads "The Congress shall have the Power … snip … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". Madison (in Federalist paper No 42, fourth paragraph from the end) gives the reason for this clause, namely that the various states had their own rules for qualifying for citzenship. So all that Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does is grant the Federal government the exclusive authority over what the criteria are for citizenship. And the Arizona law is not in conflict with this in any way.

Furthermore, the Arizona law calls for illegal aliens that are caught to be turned over to the Federal government. Thus, again, the Arizona law is not in conflict with Federal law regarding what to do with them.

And those provisions in the Arizona law that address crimes committed by illegal aliens within the borders of Arizona (criminal trespass, human smuggling, obstructing traffic while picking up day laborers, harboring and concealing illegal aliens, and knowingly employing illegal aliens) fall within the authority of the state. Hamilton shows in Federalist Paper No 32 (third paragraph) that the Arizona government has exclusive jurisdiction over illegals that violate Arizona criminal law. The Federal government has no authority to intervene. The Supremacy Clause does not apply. And after the illegals have served their sentences for these ordinary crimes, the law calls for turning them over to the Federal government. Again there is no conflict with the Constitution or Federal law. Your argument is bogus.

Here is one more point that is made in the linked article. The US Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Last Clause) explicitly permits states to keep troops if they are "actually invaded". And Arizona may even "engage in War" under those circumstances. And by all accounts, an invasion is precisely what is happening in Arizona.

And finally, note that any attempt to argue supremacy is going to be met with the question why the Federal government hasn't made the same argument against equivalent language in the California law. The Federal government has clearly set a precedent by not doing so. So bring it on. :D

JoeTheJuggler

18th June 2010, 08:58 PM

See my post above. For all intents and purposes, it's identical.

This is factually wrong. See my post above. I already cited one conflict.

[ETA: FWIW, if it were true that the laws are identical, then your strongest argument in favor of the Arizona law is that it changes nothing. If that's what you think, then shouldn't it be struck down anyway? It's either in conflict or unnecessary, isn't it?]

There are potentially others. Another similar conflict is the stuff about transporting a suspected illegal upon being released from state prison. The Federal law already covers this, but it requires a deportation order or a felony while the Arizona law does not.

The laws are most definitely not identical, and the supremacy clause tells us which one should be invalidated.

And again, there's the "field exemption" argument: that the entire field of immigration is already covered by Title 8 U.S.C.

JoeTheJuggler

18th June 2010, 09:04 PM

Fourth, (and I thank http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23919 for the following) the Supremacy Clause only applies to enumerated powers in which the Federal government is given exclusive jurisdiction. Alexander Hamilton made this very clear in the Federalist papers No 27 (last paragraph), 32 (next to last paragraph) and 33 (second paragraph). Furthermore, Hamilton stated (Federalist paper No 32, third paragraph) that even where the Constitution delegates power to the Federal government, the states retain a concurrent and coequal authority over the same matter unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the states from exercising that power.

Now Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 reads "The Congress shall have the Power … snip … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".

How exactly can there be a power of Congress to establish a uniform rule or naturalization if the states are each empowered to make their own rules?

Again, this goes to the "field preemption" issue.

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 09:13 PM

This is factually wrong. See my post above. I already cited one conflict.

Sorry but post #72 (the one above) does not cite any conflict. Please steer me to the specific post where you cited a specific conflict.

Another similar conflict is the stuff about transporting a suspected illegal upon being released from state prison. The Federal law already covers this, but it requires a deportation order or a felony while the Arizona law does not.

LOL! Well let's just see who wins in court. Like I said, bring it on. (But of course I don't actually think the Obama administration will. I think this is just more desperate rhetoric to try and bolster Obama/democrat's numbers leading up to the November elections by leading the more extreme members of the Hispanic community into believing they will file suit. I'll actually believe it only when I see it.)

The laws are most definitely not identical, and the supremacy clause tells us which one should be invalidated.

As Hamilton and Madison clearly indicated, the supremacy clause does not apply. There is no violation of the Constitution or Federal law powers that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution or exclusive to the Federal government. You and the rest of the leftists are simply blowing smoke. The one good thing is this is showing the general populace what you folks really believe. In open borders. At least for any group you think will end up being your constituency when you manage to pass the next amnesty. But well see ...

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 09:16 PM

How exactly can there be a power of Congress to establish a uniform rule or naturalization if the states are each empowered to make their own rules?

But the states aren't empowered to make their own rules of naturalization. And the Arizona law doesn't attempt that.

Now you do know the definition of naturalization, don't you? Sometimes I think leftists don't. :D

dtugg

18th June 2010, 09:19 PM

So by "no" you mean to say you didn't bring up polls and popular sentiment in the context of a thread about the federal lawsuit?

You're not serious, are you? Look at the title of the thread.

Did you actually read what I posted and what it was in response to?

Ah, so you would agree with the Federal government's lawsuit that will seek to strike down the Arizona law under a preemption challenge?

I am sure they will.

It sure sounded like you were trying to defend the law and not the Fed's case against it.

No, I was defending "those bigots in AZ," I didn't make an argument for or against the legality of the law.

You're wrong. A strawman argument is when you argue against a weak or easily defeated version of your opponent's position.

Which is what you did.

If you weren't raising the polls and popularity of the law as some sort of defense of the law, then your post was simply off topic.

So was the post the I responded to it with. What is your point?

I made no strawman argument. I'm trying to discuss the issue of the lawsuit. See the thread title. Once again, I guarantee that if the defense tries to introduce evidence of popular support for the law, the court will not allow it. It's irrelevant to the lawsuit.

We are in agreement. I certainly never said otherwise.

I would like to discuss the arguments the lawsuit will likely raise: that is Federal preemption and the supremacy clause.

Fine you can drop the whole issue. Why don't you tell me where the AZ law is in conflict with the federal law.

JoeTheJuggler

18th June 2010, 09:20 PM

Please steer me to the specific post where you cited a specific conflict.
Post number #56.

The Arizona law authorizes police to detain someone without a warrant and without there being a prior felony. This is in conflict with the Federal law.

You can keep repeating that they're identical, but they're not.

Again, if they're identical, is your support for the law based on the fact that it is wholly meaningless and changes nothing?

JoeTheJuggler

18th June 2010, 09:22 PM

Why don't you tell me where the AZ law is in conflict with the federal law.

I've done so several times now.

ETA:

Ah, so you would agree with the Federal government's lawsuit that will seek to strike down the Arizona law under a preemption challenge?
I am sure they will.
I don't understand your answer. Do you agree with the Federal government's position on the Arizona law? Do you think the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional?

dtugg

18th June 2010, 09:50 PM

I've done so several times now.

I apologize. I didn't see before.

ETA:
I don't understand your answer. Do you agree with the Federal government's position on the Arizona law? Do you think the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional?

Upon doing some reading, it appears that the law is in conflict with with 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c, if one interprets it strictly. But case law does not seem to support that interpretation. For example, in OK an illegal immigrant was arrested for being an illegal immigrant. He challenged the arrest on based on that very statute. (U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez) The 10th Circuit Court ruled that 1252c "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law."

More. (http://www.cis.org/StateEnforcement-LocalEnforcement)

BeAChooser

18th June 2010, 09:59 PM

Post number #56.

The Arizona law authorizes police to detain someone without a warrant and without there being a prior felony. This is in conflict with the Federal law.

You and your source are wrong. That is not in conflict. The fact that Federal law authorizes state and local officials to arrest and detain an individual for a given reason (in this case, being illegal and being convicted of a previous felony or having been deported previously) does not preclude the state from arresting and detaining a person for another reason … a suspected violation of Arizona laws (which is what the Arizona law allows) … such as committing an ordinary crime like robbery. The Constitution gives state's Supremacy where violating ordinary laws (within the borders of the state) are concerned. Then, there is nothing in Federal law to preclude the state from inquiring as to the legal status of the person, provided they don't profile (and the AZ law specifically prohibits profiling).

Do you grasp how absolutely ridiculous it will be for the Federal government to argue that a State has no power to arrest and detain people within it's borders who are suspected of committing a crime just because they are illegals? And there is nothing in federal law that prohibits the state from then inquiring as to the legal status of that individual, provided they don't profile. In fact, as noted already, California law gives it's authorities essentially the same power as the Arizona law to inquire about legal status. And if it then turns out the arrested person is illegal, after the state punishes the individual for violating it's laws, there is nothing in Federal law prohibiting the state from turning that person over to Federal authorities. In fact, they are likely duty bound to do it.

Obama and the democrats will lose this case hands down and become the laughing stock of most Americans if they try this defense of yours. :D

peptoabysmal

18th June 2010, 10:14 PM

I think the point of filing a suit against SB 1070 is so that a judge will prevent the law from being enforced until the legal challenges are ironed out. It will likely take years... Remember California and prop 187?

Since immigration is in the domain of Federal law, do the Feds have any plans to address the concerns of Arizona? I doubt it...

rbanks1

18th June 2010, 11:44 PM

If the United States were any other country in the world, would we even be having this conversation? What happens, if I, a US citizen, enter Mexico illegally? What happens if I attempt to enter Canada and stay for an extended period of time without the proper paperwork and approval? What if I decide that Iran should simply allow me free passage into their country, and while I am there, I'll demand that they allow me free medical care.

I've spent time in all three countries. One would be stern but forgiving of my arrogant ideas of rights in a country from which I do not hail. Another would send me to jail to await deportation, and yet another, would throw me in prison or hang me from a crane, executed as a spy.

Why is it such an awful, distasteful idea the the United States have proper enforcement of our borders and regulations regarding who crosses the border and how long they stay here as a guest? Every other goddamn country in the world has border enforcement and strict immigration laws, why should we be any different?

Frank Newgent

19th June 2010, 03:52 AM

And there is nothing in federal law that prohibits the state from then inquiring as to the legal status of that individual, provided they don't profile.

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?

Neally

19th June 2010, 07:42 AM

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?Read the law. It doesn't involve questioning the immigration status of anyone for no reason.

JoeTheJuggler

19th June 2010, 07:58 AM

You and your source are wrong. That is not in conflict.
No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you claim the laws are identical.

And again, if they are identical are you arguing that the law should stand because it changes nothing?

Either state police are authorized to arrest someone without a warrant and without a prior felony or they are not. The two laws are different in this regard. The federal law has supremacy.

Also, back to the idea of field pre-emption, from the beginning, naturalization was held by the courts to be a power exclusive to Congress to the exclusion of the states. (See Chirac v. Chirac's Lessee (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=15&invol=259) in 1817).

In Galvan v. Press (http://supreme.justia.com/us/347/522/case.html) (1954), Justice Frankfurter expressed the court's position (my bolding):

Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remains here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. In the enforcement of these policies, the Executive Branch of the Government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process. . . . But that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissue of our body politic as any aspect of our government.

dtugg

19th June 2010, 08:07 AM

No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you claim the laws are identical.

And again, if they are identical are you arguing that the law should stand because it changes nothing?

Either state police are authorized to arrest someone without a warrant and without a prior felony or they are not. The two laws are different in this regard. The federal law has supremacy.

Also, back to the idea of field pre-emption, from the beginning, naturalization was held by the courts to be a power exclusive to Congress to the exclusion of the states. (See Chirac v. Chirac's Lessee (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=15&invol=259) in 1817).

In Galvan v. Press (http://supreme.justia.com/us/347/522/case.html) (1954), Justice Frankfurter expressed the court's position (my bolding):

Did you read my first post on this page?

JoeTheJuggler

19th June 2010, 08:10 AM

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?

That's another good challenge to the law that is being made by Officer Escobar of the Tucson police. He's arguing that they will either be vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits (as you say, how do you decide whose status to verify if you're not racially profiling?) or they'll spend all their time verifying the status of virtually every person they come into contact with. Either way, it will make doing their jobs more difficult.

JoeTheJuggler

19th June 2010, 08:21 AM

Did you read my first post on this page?

Yes I did. You agree with me (not BaC) that the laws are in conflict and not identical, but you seem to think that is not reason for federal preemption of the state law.

In fact, even the weakest interpretation of federal preemption recognizes conflict preemption. Field preemption is the weaker of my two arguments, and it actually pertains in fields other than fields "which the States have traditionally occupied". (Rice v Santa Fe Elevator Corp, 1947).

There is plenty of case law that supports implied pre-emption --so Congress doesn't have to expressly state that they intended to occupy the field of naturalization, even though, as mentioned, the Constitution specifically gives Congress the job of creating a uniform rule of naturalization. If the intent was not to occupy the field, but to allow each state to set their own rules, then there is no uniform rule.

JoeTheJuggler

19th June 2010, 08:26 AM

But the states aren't empowered to make their own rules of naturalization. And the Arizona law doesn't attempt that.

Now you do know the definition of naturalization, don't you?

I think you're unaware that the treatment of aliens is part of Congress' naturalization power. (ETA: See the quote I offered from Galvan v. Press above.)

Sometimes I think leftists don't. :D
Ad hom noted, and ignored since my personal political views (or anyone else's) are also irrelevant.

dtugg

19th June 2010, 08:34 AM

Yes I did. You agree with me (not BaC) that the laws are in conflict and not identical, but you seem to think that is not reason for federal preemption of the state law.

In fact, even the weakest interpretation of federal preemption recognizes conflict preemption. Field preemption is the weaker of my two arguments, and it actually pertains in fields other than fields "which the States have traditionally occupied". (Rice v Santa Fe Elevator Corp, 1947).

There is plenty of case law that supports implied pre-emption (so Congress doesn't have to expressly state that they intended to occupy the field of naturalization, even though, as mentioned, the Constitution specifically gives Congress the job of creating a uniform rule of naturalization. If the intent was not to occupy the field, but to allow each state to set their own rules, then there is no uniform rule.

Apparently you didn't, or you're in denial or something. Because in 1999 the 10th Circuit Court ruled that there federal law "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law." US v. Vasquez-Alvarez. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2908896292414566455&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

There, I established that according to current case law, it is not illegal for states to enforce immigration laws. Deal with it. I also find it ironic that back then the US was arguing that states do have the authority to arrest illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants.

I suppose it is possible that the courts will ignore the precedent but I doubt it.

JoeTheJuggler

19th June 2010, 08:42 AM

Apparently you didn't, or you're in denial or something. Because in 1999 the 10th Circuit Court ruled that there federal law "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law." US v. Vasquez-Alvarez. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2908896292414566455&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

There, I established that according to current case law, it is not illegal for states to enforce immigration laws. Deal with it. I also find it ironic that back then the US was arguing that states do have the authority to arrest illegal immigrants for being illegal immigrants.

I suppose it is possible that the courts will ignore the precedent but I doubt it.

First, the Supreme Court is allowed to ignore lower court precedent, but that's not really the point. If the laws are in conflict, the case you're citing doesn't apply.

And if an arrest is made that is only authorized under Arizona SB1070 and is not authorized under federal law, the case you cited doesn't apply. Again, we're not talking about cases where the status is somehow known, but where state police only suspect the person is illegal. In the absence of a prior felony, federal law does not authorize arrest and detention. So it cannot be claimed that the state police are enforcing the federal law. Such an arrest would only be authorized under the new state law.

And if state law and federal law is in conflict, the federal law is supreme.

It could be that the court will decide the case ala carte and only strike down the parts of the Arizona law that are in conflict, and leave the rest. Then again, what's the point? If all that's left changes nothing from the status quo, what's the intent of the law? (Leaving off the political intent of the law! The scapegoating of immigrants and political exploitation of anti-immigrant sentiments.)

WildCat

19th June 2010, 08:43 AM

Why is it such an awful, distasteful idea the the United States have proper enforcement of our borders and regulations regarding who crosses the border and how long they stay here as a guest? Every other goddamn country in the world has border enforcement and strict immigration laws, why should we be any different?
It is amazing, isn't it? Apparently, the US is the only country in the world that isn't allowed to control immigration.

bynmdsue

19th June 2010, 08:50 AM

Someone in this thread has yet to read the law.Can you guess who it is?

dtugg

19th June 2010, 08:55 AM

First, the Supreme Court is allowed to ignore lower court precedent, but that's not really the point.

I am aware of this. That is why I said it is possible that they will ignore the precedent.

If the laws are in conflict, the case you're citing doesn't apply.

But the case says the laws aren't in conflict.

And if an arrest is made that is only authorized under Arizona SB1070 and is not authorized under federal law, the case you cited doesn't apply. Again, we're not talking about cases where the status is somehow known, but where state police only suspect the person is illegal. In the absence of a prior felony, federal law does not authorize arrest and detention. So it cannot be claimed that the state police are enforcing the federal law. Such an arrest would only be authorized under the new state law.

And if state law and federal law is in conflict, the federal law is supreme.

It could be that the court will decide the case ala carte and only strike down the parts of the Arizona law that are in conflict, and leave the rest. Then again, what's the point? If all that's left changes nothing from the status quo, what's the intent of the law? (Leaving off the political intent of the law! The scapegoating of immigrants and political exploitation of anti-immigrant sentiments.)

Dude, read the case. It applies nearly perfectly. The cop arrested Vasquez solely for being an illegal immigrant. It turned out the guy had a history of convictions and deportations but the cop didn't know that until later. The court ruled that it didn't matter because the law in question "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law."

You can disagree with the 10th Circuit Court and hope that the precedent is changed if you want to. But at least admit that according to case law, there is nothing illegal about states arresting illegal immigrants. It couldn't be more clear.

BeAChooser

19th June 2010, 09:06 AM

JoeTheJuggler

19th June 2010, 09:29 AM

But the case says the laws aren't in conflict.
What case? The federal lawsuit against the Arizona law hasn't even been filed, and no other court has reviewed this law and found that they aren't in conflict.

Again, you said you agreed with me that the Arizona law conflicts with the federal law. If you concede that point, then it's an easy matter to support conflict preemption.

BaC is sticking to his guns that the laws aren't in conflict.

JoeTheJuggler

19th June 2010, 09:30 AM

It is amazing, isn't it? Apparently, the US is the only country in the world that isn't allowed to control immigration.

What? No one's saying anything like that.

The authority to control immigration is given to Congress, not the states. That's the issue at the heart of this lawsuit.

BeAChooser

19th June 2010, 09:32 AM

No, you are wrong, no matter how many times you claim the laws are identical.

No, I am right, no matter how many times you say otherwise. :D

Which is why I'm confident that either the Obama administration will never actually file a lawsuit (it's all just rhetoric to try and keep the base supportive until the November elections ... which are going to turn out badly for democrats, in any case, in part because of nonsense like this) or if they do file a suit, they will lose badly.

And again, if they are identical are you arguing that the law should stand because it changes nothing?

I already clearly stated my reasons for believing the law will stand a court test. I feel no need to repeat myself, just because you don't want to even try and understand those reasons.

Either state police are authorized to arrest someone without a warrant and without a prior felony or they are not.

So you are claiming that state police cannot arrest anyone without a warrant and without them having a prior felony? Do you know absolutely silly that sounds?

The federal law has supremacy.

Not when it comes to ordinary crimes committed in the state.

naturalization was held by the courts to be a power exclusive to Congress to the exclusion of the states.

But the Arizona law does nothing to preempt Congress's power in that regard.

I'll ask you again, Joe, do you even know what the term naturalization means? The term, as used in the Constitution, ONLY pertains to the legal requirements needed for granting citizenship. The term naturalization has nothing to do with the rights of people who are caught here illegally. And that fact was made quite clear in the writings of those who created and signed the Constitution.

Furthermore, regarding the opinion (Galvan v. Press) you cited, the Arizona laws says nothing about policies "pertaining to the entry of aliens" or their "right to remain here". If the Obama administration decided to release the illegals the moment they were turned over to the Federal government by Arizona, they could do so. And nothing prevents those illegals from getting "due process" in the event the Federal government decided not to release them on our streets again.

You and the socialist left simply don't know what you are talking about Joe. And apparently most Americans are already wise to that which is why polls show support of the Arizona law increasing. And any forum that gives my side of this debate an opportunity to inform them further, like a court of law, will only increase that support. So like I've been asking in other threads, Joe, is this to be a nation governed by the Rule of Law or the Rule of Obama? What right does he and his justice department have to arbitrarily ignore our laws, as he just did in allowing an illegal Harvard student to remain in this country? It's not like we really need another socialist, leftist lawyer. :D

dtugg

19th June 2010, 09:35 AM

What case? The federal lawsuit against the Arizona law hasn't even been filed, and no other court has reviewed this law and found that they aren't in conflict.

US vs Vasquez-Alverez. The issues are identical.

Again, you said you agreed with me that the Arizona law conflicts with the federal law. If you concede that point, then it's an easy matter to support conflict preemption.

I said it could if you interpreted it strictly.

Will you finally concede according to case law, states can enforce federal immigration laws?

dtugg

19th June 2010, 09:51 AM

In fact the only real difference between US v. Vasquez-Alverez and this future US v. Arizona suit is that in the former the US government argued that the states can enforce federal immigration laws and in the latter they will presumably argue the opposite.

funk de fino

19th June 2010, 11:00 AM

I am a resident of southern Arizona. I have many friends who happen to reside in the northern border towns of Sonora, Mexico. We are not bigots in any sense of the word here. When was the last time you walked out into your front yard and found a group of people dying from dehydration, driven like cattle by a "Coyote" smuggler who himself, is in bad shape and in need of medical attention, and water? I had this situation happen just over two weeks ago. My neighbor saw the situation and also helped. Do you have proof that I, or my neighbors at other ranch properties denied people water, food, and medical attention because they are just "spics"? If we are racist bigots, we would have just let them die, right?

There are a bunch of honest, good people who cross the border every day, and there are some, who are not good people at all who make their living out of victimizing their fellow citizens with a "safe trip" north, which far too often ends in death.

My point is, the people I know, are not bigots in any sense of the word. Southern Arizona is caught in a crisis of criminal activity that is causing the deaths of some American citizens, and a horrific number of Mexican citizens. The federal government has sat on it's hands for years, and has done next to nothing to enforce the law. Something has to be done, and be it the right policy, or the wrong one, at least Arizona is actually doing something.

Your generalization that Arizona residents or our elected representatives are bigots, is way off the mark.

rbanks1

I was talking about the bigot Brewer and the bigot who wrote it. It would help if you read the thread first instead of goiing off half cocked.

Frank Newgent

19th June 2010, 04:17 PM

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?

I highlighted the portion of your question that is a false assumption.

And you must have wax in your ears and a blindfold on, because the sponsors/defenders of the Arizona law have answered that question a thousand times already in print, on radio and on TV.

Don't know what you are referring to. Hard to watch US TV in Indonesia.

Can you explain what you mean? If one is not profiling then everybody must have their immigration status verified, no?

Thunder

19th June 2010, 06:38 PM

I think this law could be ammended to be a little less......ugly.

but i do not like the tone that seems to be coming out of that state. first this law, than the anti-ethnic education law, now a citizenship law for kids.

applecorped

19th June 2010, 06:39 PM

What are the odds?

BeAChooser

19th June 2010, 06:40 PM

I think you're unaware that the treatment of aliens is part of Congress' naturalization power. (ETA: See the quote I offered from Galvan v. Press above.)

I debunked that assertion in post #102. Awaiting your response.

my personal political views ... snip ... are also irrelevant.

I suspect they heavily influence your response. :D

rbanks1

19th June 2010, 06:42 PM

I was talking about the bigot Brewer and the bigot who wrote it. It would help if you read the thread first instead of goiing off half cocked.

Hello funk de fino,

I assure you that I did indeed read the entire thread first. You accused Governor Brewer and others in leadership positions of being bigots. You used the plural "bigots", implying that an unknown number of Arizona citizens who serve in state government are indeed, bigots. You referred to "the ones", also plural.

The unknown number of people you are talking about are citizens of Arizona, many of whom I know on a professional level as well as a few who I consider to be friends. I also know Jan Brewer from her days serving as Secretary of State, and I can assure you that she is no bigot, nor are any of the other people I know in state government. If you believe that she is, then please post the proof of your claim.

You've made baseless accusations of bigotry against a group of people who I know and respect. If the tables were turned, would you not be offended and feel a need to respond to accusations that you know are not true? If I take you at your word that you were only talking about Brewer and "the bigot who wrote it", you are still making baseless and ugly accusations of racism and bigotry against two people who you know next to nothing about. You don't even know the name or names of the people who wrote the law, yet you know that they are bigots? How can you rationalize or justify that?

rbanks1

BeAChooser

19th June 2010, 06:52 PM

what's the intent of the law? (Leaving off the political intent of the law! The scapegoating of immigrants and political exploitation of anti-immigrant sentiments.)

THAT is an outright lie. The intent of the law is to stop ILLEGAL immigrants from wrecking Arizona. ILLEGAL. If ANY group is trying to exploit someone here, Joe, it's demogogue democrats who think (probably correctly) that they can get the vote of the Hispanic community by dishonesty portraying this (through their sympathic MSM) as a race issue directed at them. The true exploiters are democrats who think this will allow them to acquire millions of more voters if/when they also manage to put through yet another amnesty for all these illegals. No one is fooled here, Joe. And you won't intimidate us into silence with your false charges of racism against us either.

Neally

19th June 2010, 07:33 PM

I think this law could be ammended to be a little less......ugly.How so?

i do not like the tone that seems to be coming out of that state. first this law, than the anti-ethnic education law, now a citizenship law for kids. Fair enough. So you don't like the federal law which demands that non-citizens carry their paperwork showing they are here legally and allows the requesting of such paperwork on demand, similar to the AZ law. You think that there should be no restrictions on people entering the country?

You don't like the AZ education law that prohibits classes that:
1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

So you are in favor or classes that advocate the the overthrow of the government, advocate racism, discriminate racially, and promote separatism.

You are in favor of the anchor baby law, which has been rejected by the UK, Canada, France and most other countries, the U.S. being one of the exceptions.

funk de fino

19th June 2010, 11:36 PM

Hello funk de fino,

I assure you that I did indeed read the entire thread first. You accused Governor Brewer and others in leadership positions of being bigots. You used the plural "bigots", implying that an unknown number of Arizona citizens who serve in state government are indeed, bigots. You referred to "the ones", also plural.

The unknown number of people you are talking about are citizens of Arizona, many of whom I know on a professional level as well as a few who I consider to be friends. I also know Jan Brewer from her days serving as Secretary of State, and I can assure you that she is no bigot, nor are any of the other people I know in state government. If you believe that she is, then please post the proof of your claim.

You've made baseless accusations of bigotry against a group of people who I know and respect. If the tables were turned, would you not be offended and feel a need to respond to accusations that you know are not true? If I take you at your word that you were only talking about Brewer and "the bigot who wrote it", you are still making baseless and ugly accusations of racism and bigotry against two people who you know next to nothing about. You don't even know the name or names of the people who wrote the law, yet you know that they are bigots? How can you rationalize or justify that?

rbanks1

I have seen plenty about the bigot who wrote it and if Brewer was involved in the decision to allow him to write it then she is a bigot. Just because I do not name him here does not mean I know little about him or his past. If you feel that my posts have cast aspersions on others in your fair state, then I apologize as that was not my intention. I will not back down on my opinions on Brewer or the law writer though, they are bigots or at best acting like bigots.

funk de fino

19th June 2010, 11:44 PM

How so?

Fair enough. So you don't like the federal law which demands that non-citizens carry their paperwork showing they are here legally and allows the requesting of such paperwork on demand, similar to the AZ law. You think that there should be no restrictions on people entering the country?

You don't like the AZ education law that prohibits classes that:
1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

So you are in favor or classes that advocate the the overthrow of the government, advocate racism, discriminate racially, and promote separatism.

You are in favor of the anchor baby law, which has been rejected by the UK, Canada, France and most other countries, the U.S. being one of the exceptions.

I think, like others, Parky is seeing an undercurrent in all of this AZ stuff. Many others are too.

dtugg

19th June 2010, 11:50 PM

I think that the only reason the Obama Administration wants to sue the state of Arizona for enforcing laws they refuse to is because they think it will make them look good politically. I hope they are wrong and it backfires in their face. And since polls suggest that most Americans support this law, this seems like a good possibility.

funk de fino

19th June 2010, 11:54 PM

The bottom line is that the only circumstances where police can inquire as to citizenship according to the law is if the person is suspected of an ordinary state crime and other factors (than that swarthy brown complexion that hispanics often have ;) or the fact that he says his name is Gonzalez) makes the authorities think the person might be an illegal alien. This isn't racial profiling but criminal profiling. What other factors might be considered? Well, for one, not having any identification at all. Not having insurance for the car they are driving. Or being in the desert near the border at the time that person violates other Arizona laws.

What does an illegal alien look like? If stopped by state police would Nick Chapman (caucasian) be asked for papers proving his immigration status?

Why are many of the senior state police against this law?

By the way, do you know what Indonesia does?

You really compared a whole other country to a state?

Frank Newgent

20th June 2010, 12:53 AM

And you think you can't find the answer to that question on the internet? :rolleyes: It's been addressed countless times. Learn to use your browser.

I'm letting you make your argument. Thank you for your cooperation :D

The bottom line is that the only circumstances where police can inquire as to citizenship according to the law is if the person is suspected of an ordinary state crime and other factors...

A Tucson police officer stops to check out a guy standing on the lawn of a house where one too many cars is up on blocks. The guy is sullen and uncommunicative and can't/won't produce any identification.

What happens next under the Arizona law?

By the way, do you know what Indonesia does?

Shakes a lot.

Jekyll's Guest

20th June 2010, 01:55 AM

Here's a question for you states rights types: is this going to backfire on the federal government?

Will states that were neutral or opposed to Arizona's law now side with them out of principal?

Uncayimmy

20th June 2010, 02:09 AM

A Tucson police officer stops to check out a guy standing on the lawn of a house where one too many cars is up on blocks. The guy is sullen and uncommunicative and can't/won't produce any identification.

What happens next under the Arizona law?

In Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

There's no requirement to produce ID, only to state their full name when being lawfully detained. Your example is a little odd because police usually don't engage in zoning enforcement, but as I understand it in theory they can. In this case, however, the person violating the ordinance would be the owner of the property. So why would the officer be engaging this person? It's really rather an awkward example.

I think what you're driving at is what will constitute probable cause as outlined in this part of the statute:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it what the statute is saying that all government agencies (not just police) have an obligation to determine (where practical) the immigration status of anyone for whom they have reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien. Further, the police can arrest people if they have probable cause to believe they are in the USA illegally.

The $37 question is what's probable cause? That's going to be determined by the courts. You will not be considered an illegal alien if you can produce any of the following:

* A valid Arizona driver license.
* A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
* A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
* Any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, provided the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance.

The question, of course, is still what's probable cause if I can't produce any of the following? I don't think anybody knows at this point. I'll speculate, but it's just speculation.

If the cops had the discretion to arrest you or detain you before this law, they still have that discretion. If you don't have any of the ID above, I think the cops will bring you in and check on your immigration status.

What if they don't have that option and you don't have ID? You are required to give your full name by law, so they can run that through their system. If they find that you've been deported before, I think that goes a long way towards probable cause to arrest you and check your status. The stats I have seen show that many illegals are arrested multiple times, which is why there are new laws elsewhere with stricter penalties for repeat offenses. Aliens are supposed to carry their papers with them, so unless you suddenly became a citizen, you should have ID on you already.

What if they find nothing on you? I think that would depend on what kind of access they have to databases in the state. For example, if they question you about your employer, and that employer doesn't exist and there are no records of you paying taxes or otherwise being employed in the state, is that probable cause to arrest you and check out your immigration status more thoroughly? I'm thinking it would be in that I would expect an illegal alien to be somebody without ID who, along with his employer, doesn't appear in state databases. After all, being here illegally is in many ways a crime of paperwork.

The ACLU side of me argues that there could be legitimate reasons why somebody doesn't have an ID. There could be paperwork issues in the state databases keeping the police from verifying the information given. Problem is, if that's not enough to take the extra steps of investigating further, then what is?

So, I would put the question of probable cause to those who have issues with this statute: What do you think probable cause should be?

pipelineaudio

20th June 2010, 02:49 AM

I was talking about the bigot Brewer and the bigot who wrote it.

Oh man! Where's the laughing dog?

Frank Newgent

20th June 2010, 04:14 AM

A Tucson police officer stops to check out a guy standing on the lawn of a house where one too many cars is up on blocks. The guy is sullen and uncommunicative and can't/won't produce any identification.

What happens next under the Arizona law?

In Arizona:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

There's no requirement to produce ID, only to state their full name when being lawfully detained. Your example is a little odd because police usually don't engage in zoning enforcement, but as I understand it in theory they can. In this case, however, the person violating the ordinance would be the owner of the property.

An assumption the officer might not necessarily make. As far as my example being odd i believe that the law specifies that the police must determine the immigration status of anybody involved in a municipal code violation.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/30/20100430arizona-immigration-law-governor-signs-revised-bill.html

So why would the officer be engaging this person? It's really rather an awkward example.

The officer would be required to engage this person under the law should he, say, be blasting Norteño accordian from some car speakers.

I think what you're driving at is what will constitute probable cause as outlined in this part of the statute:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it what the statute is saying that all government agencies (not just police) have an obligation to determine (where practical) the immigration status of anyone for whom they have reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien. Further, the police can arrest people if they have probable cause to believe they are in the USA illegally.

The $37 question is what's probable cause? That's going to be determined by the courts. You will not be considered an illegal alien if you can produce any of the following:

* A valid Arizona driver license.
* A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
* A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
* Any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, provided the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance.

I (yeah, it's my house [rented] the whole time) must produce some sort of ID? Don't think so.

The question, of course, is still what's probable cause if I can't produce any of the following? I don't think anybody knows at this point. I'll speculate, but it's just speculation.

If the cops had the discretion to arrest you or detain you before this law, they still have that discretion. If you don't have any of the ID above, I think the cops will bring you in and check on your immigration status.

What if they don't have that option and you don't have ID? You are required to give your full name by law, so they can run that through their system. If they find that you've been deported before, I think that goes a long way towards probable cause to arrest you and check your status. The stats I have seen show that many illegals are arrested multiple times, which is why there are new laws elsewhere with stricter penalties for repeat offenses. Aliens are supposed to carry their papers with them, so unless you suddenly became a citizen, you should have ID on you already.

What if they find nothing on you? I think that would depend on what kind of access they have to databases in the state. For example, if they question you about your employer, and that employer doesn't exist and there are no records of you paying taxes or otherwise being employed in the state, is that probable cause to arrest you and check out your immigration status more thoroughly? I'm thinking it would be in that I would expect an illegal alien to be somebody without ID who, along with his employer, doesn't appear in state databases. After all, being here illegally is in many ways a crime of paperwork.

The ACLU side of me argues that there could be legitimate reasons why somebody doesn't have an ID. There could be paperwork issues in the state databases keeping the police from verifying the information given. Problem is, if that's not enough to take the extra steps of investigating further, then what is?

So, I would put the question of probable cause to those who have issues with this statute: What do you think probable cause should be?

You mean like selling Strawberry Quik atole in front of a Goodwill store?

Probable cause must be based on factual evidence and not just on suspicion.

Most probable cause sources can be placed into four categories. These categories are:
•Observation – This is information that the officer obtains through their senses, such as sight, smell or hearing. This category is also used when an officer detects a familiar pattern of criminal activity that contains suspicious behaviors (i.e., flashing headlights, circling around a certain neighborhood.)
•Expertise – These are skills that officers are specially trained in, such as: being able to read gang graffiti and tattoos, detecting tools that are used in burglaries or knowing when certain movements or gestures indicate that a criminal activity is about to occur.
•Information – Statements provided by witnesses and victims, information provided by informants, and announcements made through police bulletins and broadcasts.
•Circumstantial Evidence – This is indirect evidence that implies that a crime has occurred but does not directly prove it.

http://www.probablecause.org/whatisprobablecause.html

The first rule of probable cause that somebody is an illegal alien is you don't talk about (your) probable cause.

Uncayimmy

20th June 2010, 12:45 PM

An assumption the officer might not necessarily make. As far as my example being odd i believe that the law specifies that the police must determine the immigration status of anybody involved in a municipal code violation.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/30/20100430arizona-immigration-law-governor-signs-revised-bill.html

I think you read that wrong. Zoning enforcement is usually done under the umbrella of the police department but not by actual police officers except in unusual circumstances. The article you cite clarifies that zone enforcement agents will not be required to determine immigration status because they are nto police officers. It doesn't say anything at all about the police being required to determing the status of "anybody involved in a municipal code violation" like you claim. The police are not suddenly going to be used for every overgrown lawn or car parked on the grass.

As for the definition of "anybody involved" your premise is still awkward. Standing on a property that is in violation doesn't make a person "involved" in the violation. So, if by some freak chance a cop was involved in such enforcement, why would they deal with that person?

The officer would be required to engage this person under the law should he, say, be blasting Norteño accordian from some car speakers.
Yes, a police officer would have to engage somebody blasting their car stereo too loud. That's a different situation. If you want to switch situations to one that's more clear, that's fine by me.

I (yeah, it's my house [rented] the whole time) must produce some sort of ID? Don't think so.
I've re-read what I wrote and what you wrote, and I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

You mean like selling Strawberry Quik atole in front of a Goodwill store?
Again, no clue what you're trying to say. Sentences are cheap. Use a few more.

The first rule of probable cause that somebody is an illegal alien is you don't talk about (your) probable cause.
Still no clue what you're trying to say.

Cactus Wren

20th June 2010, 01:43 PM

A number of people have referenced an ABC/Washington Post poll which found that 58% of Americans polled supported the Arizona law.

Can someone please give me a link to the poll? Not to news reports about the poll, but to the poll itself -- the wording of the question(s) asked?

The only poll I can find the wording for is this Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127598/Americans-Favor-Oppose-Arizona-Immigration-Law.aspx) which found 51% supporting, 39% opposing -- a poll which was phrased (bolding mine), "Based on what you know or have read about the new Arizona immigration law, do you favor or oppose it?" (This poll was limited to adults who by their own report know "a great deal, a fair amount, or not much" about the law.)

Were participants in the ABC/Post poll, like those in the Gallup poll, encouraged to express their opinions from a position of near-complete ignorance? Was ANY attempt made to determine what, if anything, they did know and whether what they had "heard or read" was accurate or not?

bynmdsue

20th June 2010, 02:19 PM

If stopped by state police would Nick Chapman (caucasian) be asked for papers proving his immigration status?

Does Nick Chapman have...
A valid Arizona driver license,a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification,a valid Arizona non-operating identification license or any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, provided the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance?

If he does no questions regarding his immigration status need to be asked,if not he has some explaining to do.

Frank Newgent

20th June 2010, 04:04 PM

I think you read that wrong. Zoning enforcement is usually done under the umbrella of the police department but not by actual police officers except in unusual circumstances. The article you cite clarifies that zone enforcement agents will not be required to determine immigration status because they are nto police officers. It doesn't say anything at all about the police being required to determing the status of "anybody involved in a municipal code violation" like you claim. The police are not suddenly going to be used for every overgrown lawn or car parked on the grass.

HB 2162 also specifies that a law-enforcement officer would be required to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a municipal or county code violation.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/30/20100430arizona-immigration-law-governor-signs-revised-bill.html

Anything else I can help you with?

Uncayimmy

20th June 2010, 09:19 PM

Anything else I can help you with?

I don't hang out in the Politics forum, so maybe your response is typical. If so, that's sad. Vague and incorrect one-liners don't advance the discussion. This is what you originally said:
"As far as my example being odd i believe that the law specifies that the police must determine the immigration status of anybody involved in a municipal code violation."

As written, that statement is incorrect. Why? For several reasons, actually. First, "municipal code" is not a synonym for zoning regulations, which is what we were discussing. Municipal code includes criminal code along with health codes, business licensing, taxation and other local laws. Yes, they are laws, and the police can, in theory, enforce them.

Thing is, police are usually not used to enforce the non-criminal sections of the municipal code. You don't need to go to the police academy to be able to issue a citation to a restaurant with a broken water heater. That's why they have code enforcement divisions for the various non-criminal sections of the code.

Therefore, to say that the police need to check the immigration status of "anybody" violating those codes is incorrect. The statute does not in any way require the police to become involved in non-criminal code enforcement. People will continue to violate code, and the code enforcement agents will enforce the code. When the statute goes into effect, the police will not be involved anymore than they were before.

Of course, if they do become involved, which is rare, they will be required to deal with the immigration status of alleged non-criminal law-breakers the same way they will be required to deal with those alleged to have broken criminal law.

If you disagree with that, then say so and present your evidence as to why you believe this is the case.

Frank Newgent

21st June 2010, 12:06 AM

I don't hang out in the Politics forum, so maybe your response is typical. If so, that's sad. Vague and incorrect one-liners don't advance the discussion. This is what you originally said:
"As far as my example being odd i believe that the law specifies that the police must determine the immigration status of anybody involved in a municipal code violation."

As written, that statement is incorrect. Why? For several reasons, actually. First, "municipal code" is not a synonym for zoning regulations, which is what we were discussing. Municipal code includes criminal code along with health codes, business licensing, taxation and other local laws. Yes, they are laws, and the police can, in theory, enforce them.

Thing is, police are usually not used to enforce the non-criminal sections of the municipal code. You don't need to go to the police academy to be able to issue a citation to a restaurant with a broken water heater. That's why they have code enforcement divisions for the various non-criminal sections of the code.

Therefore, to say that the police need to check the immigration status of "anybody" violating those codes is incorrect. The statute does not in any way require the police to become involved in non-criminal code enforcement. People will continue to violate code, and the code enforcement agents will enforce the code. When the statute goes into effect, the police will not be involved anymore than they were before.

Of course, if they do become involved, which is rare, they will be required to deal with the immigration status of alleged non-criminal law-breakers the same way they will be required to deal with those alleged to have broken criminal law.

If you disagree with that, then say so and present your evidence as to why you believe this is the case.

It's your law (soon). Silly to bitch to me about it.

B. For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 12:41 AM

That's another good challenge to the law that is being made by Officer Escobar of the Tucson police. He's arguing that they will either be vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits (as you say, how do you decide whose status to verify if you're not racially profiling?) or they'll spend all their time verifying the status of virtually every person they come into contact with. Either way, it will make doing their jobs more difficult.

We could make their jobs a lot easier if we didn't make so many things illegal. Fortunately, making their jobs "easier" is not on the agenda.

The notion that they need to verify the status of virtually everyone they meet is simply not true. The bill has been amended to clarify (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/30/20100430arizona-immigration-law-governor-signs-revised-bill.html) that "law-enforcement officers shall inquire about the immigration status only of those they "stop, detain or arrest."

Part of the whole stop, detain, arrest scenario requires checking IDs. If people are carrying certain ID (AZ license or ID card, immigration documentation, or ID from states that require proof of immigration status), that is considered proof of legal status. While I don't have any direct evidence, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that most of the people the police encounter will have some form of acceptable ID. Thus, the extra work for "virtually everybody" argument just doesn't play out.

As I asked in another post, what do you call probable cause for making an arrest? Is there a way to do it and avoid racial profiling lawsuits? As a layman, I think there is. Hear me out.

First, the police already ask questions that people are not legally required to answer, yet they do. In droves. For example, if a cop pulls you over and asks if you have been drinking, there is no requirement that you answer. In reality, people do answer. Likewise, a cop cannot search your vehicle without probable cause, but they ask anyway. You can refuse, but in reality people agree to it even when they have guns and drugs hidden.

So, let's look at it from the cop's perspective. He's involved in a lawful encounter such as a traffic stop. If he's pulled you over, you need to produce a driver's license. If you don't have one, you can be arrested. Once in custody, they will go try to identify you, and if they can't verify your information, they will run you through ICE. If you have an AZ license, contacting ICE is off the table.

But let's say you have a license from a state that does not verify your citizenship or immigration status. Contacting ICE is still on the table. So, what does the cop do at this point?

As a matter of policy, I would say they should ask a series of direct questions about your immigration status. If you say that you are not a citizen, then by law you are supposed to have your immigration card with you. If you don't, they can arrest you because you are in violation of the law.

In my opinion what I've described so far will go a long way towards enforcing the current federal immigration laws without putting any risk whatsoever on the police department or putting an undue burden on civilians.

What if you say that you are a citizen? You could be lying, of course. This is where it gets sticky. In Arizona you are required to give you full name. If they run your name through the system and find you have been deported for immigration violations, then it's a safe bet that you're probably not a citizen at this point. To me, that's probable cause.

What if they don't find you in the system? This is where I think it starts to get really sticky. Will courts consider the ability to speak English a factor? In other words will it be probable cause to arrest you and run you through ICE if (say) you are brown (Mexican) and have difficulty speaking English? I dunno. I'm thinking probably not. If you have a valid license from California (I'm pretty sure they don't check immigration status there, but I could be mistaken), and say you're a citizen of the USA, I think the cops will need more than that for probable cause.

What about encounters other than traffic stops? In Arizona, you are not required to produce ID to the police, just your name. I would say the policy would be to ask if the person has a license. They can refuse to answer, but I'm betting many will answer. If they have a license, ask them to produce it. I think most will. If so, ICE is off the table.

Still, though, the cop will be expected to run the name through the system. Could they find out that the person was deported recently? Maybe, I dunno. If so, that might indicate the license is invalid. I think they would have probable cause there.

Again, I would say you ask about the immigration status. If the person says they are not a citizen, then they are required to carry their immigration card. If they don't have it, then they can be arrested. If you ask everybody that, there's no racial issues involved.

Suppose they say they are a citizen. They say they have no license. You run the name through the system and find nothing. Is that probable cause? I'd say no. If they struggle with English, is that probable cause? Maybe, but probably not. If they are walking through the middle of the desert and can't offer a reasonable explanation, can you put all that together and have probable cause to believe they are crossing illegally into the state? I'd say so, but the courts will have to decide that.

Are there steps they can take to investigate further at the stop? Well, they could ask for the person's address. They don't have to answer, but I'm betting most will. If they give a fake address, I would say that this could be part of forming probable cause. If the address is valid, I don't think you have much to go on.

So, at this point I can only see a couple of ways to be at risk for accusations of racial profiling based on the new statute. The first would be if they didn't ask the questions I have suggested of everyone. It only takes a few seconds, so I don't think it's a big burden.

Another way I can see it happening is if people lawfully refuse to answer the questions, and only (say) brown people are arrested. That's very obviously profiling. If they use the admittedly subjective metric of fluency of English, then it shouldn't matter if you're brown, black or white even though statistically here in AZ, one could make the argument that brown people with English difficulties speaking Mexican Spanish who claim to be citizens without IDs are probably more likely to be here illegally than any other group.

So, I leave to others to point out what I'm missing in my argument that the new statute is impossible to enforce without risking discrimination lawsuits. I fully acknowledge that it could be abused in a discriminatory fashion, but the same is true of just about any law. I'm interested in hearing how it's not possible to do it properly.

HarryHenderson

21st June 2010, 12:49 AM

No, in this case, because you think that whether or not "a clear majority of Americans" agree with something is in any way relevant to whether or not it's legal.
Wow. Sounds like just a few signatures, the permit fee (of course), and, oh, a slam dunk and this law will be declared invalid and illegal. Cause 'laws' are so cut and dried that way. Anyway, would you deny or agree '...politics is in any way relevant to whether or not it's legal'?

Not really. There's this little thing called a "Constitution," you see...
...immigration policy is one of the powers reserved exclusively for the Federal government.

...because Arizona doesn't have the authority to set immigration policy...part of why I consider you Stuck on Stupid. Because you can't get basic facts like federal supremacy correct.....
Yes, of course, "I see it", it's all so black and white! Wait, where is AZ setting 'immigration policy' again?

If wanting to enforce the law makes one a bigot, then I suppose the majority of Americans are bigots.
The common sense having gone over his head, you finally, in essence, just agree with him and yet he (funkdefino) still argues it further on. Amazing.

So anyway, 'bigot' is just an overused safe word on the JREF anyway. ******* ******* or **** *** ****** just doesn't have the same affect as real words, regardless of those word's inaccuracy/abuse-in-use. In most of the instances I've seen it used here, it doesn't apply at all: "one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." So anti-smoking groups/people are just 'intolerant bigots'? I smoked for 27 years and in even the deepest depths of my indifference towards non-smokers, not once did I think they were 'after me' because they were 'intolerant bigots'. But that's just me. [cliché #555]

So we're gonna need at least 'a linky or two' for all the instances where 'hatred and intolerance' are proven to be the motivations for writing and enacting this law. I mean, was it, say, initially introduced at a KKK rally? You know, **** like that!

...A bigot wrote the statute. Brewer is a bigot too. I do not meet too many like them in my travels. Luckily...
Yes, you're so lucky. See above.

Because most of the people living here that are all of a sudden deeply concerned about "enforcing the law" only care about enforcing this law. Because we don't have anyone proposing that we enforce any other Federal laws in the extreme manner they want this law enforced...
So the best reason 'you guys' can come up with for opposing this law is because 'it's just so obvious they want to enforce only this law'? I thought it was about some kind of 'conflict' with federal law? Let me guess, it doesn't matter because they're...bigots? Does it occur to any of 'you guys' that it could be, just possibly, in the best interest of the state and it's legal residents to do what they can to curb an obvious and rampant 'illegal immigration' problem?

I'm still not sure what all the 'wisdom' here thinks should be done instead? Just leave it be? As long as it conforms to some manner of political correctness and has a left of center ideology, it's A-okay? I agree it's impossible to deny the fact that it's more than likely people of a darker skin color will comprise most of the group targeted by this law. But, and I hate to point it out, of all the different 'races' of people coming into this country illegally, a very large portion of them do in fact have 'dark skin'. And that fact alone somehow 'nulls and voids' any and all governmental entity's legal ability and right to enforce local or federal law related to such? Just bigots, right?

...The fact that this law is popular is no more justification for it than the popularity of slavery justified that institution.
Yes, of course, how could we be so stupid, they're both absolutely equal in terms of moral turpitude too. Slavery - Asking for proper ID - yep, same.

...It does not matter what views the writer may have? That would not affect your thoughts on why something was introduced?

...Obama will beat the bigots.
Now there's some serious irony. Appealing to motive by championing the king idiot of stupid 'views'. Just WOW! [cliché #007]

No, your saying wanting to enforce a law made you a bigot because that is what my argument apparently meant, was a strawman.
No it wasn't. But okay.

...Second, many state laws, particularly environmental ones … like those in California, are more strict than Federal law, yet those aren't viewed as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Why not? And if that's allowed, why can't a state pass a law that imposes even harsher penalties in this case?
Funny nobody has wanted to address this 'conflict'.

...Upon doing some reading, it appears that the law is in conflict with with 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c, if one interprets it strictly. But case law does not seem to support that interpretation. For example, in OK an illegal immigrant was arrested for being an illegal immigrant. He challenged the arrest on based on that very statute. (U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez) The 10th Circuit Court ruled that 1252c "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law."

More. (http://www.cis.org/StateEnforcement-LocalEnforcement)
Excellent. I knew that one was gonna leave a mark.

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?
Oh I don't know, ask for their ID? A white caucasian refusing (or unable) to offer his ID or mention his name wouldn't be considered 'suspect' of something? They wouldn't be 'detained' or questioned further? "I don't have any ID and yer not gonna get anything out of me." "Oh, well, if you put it that way. Fine. Go on your way." All because, of course, the big bad policeman would be fearing federal lawsuits, and stuff, for asking such basic questions they're were entitled to ask not a year ago.

Your racism is noted...
Are you like king of the douches? Please, SHOW US HIS RACISM.

...Dude, read the case. It applies nearly perfectly...The court ruled that it didn't matter because the law in question "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law."

You can disagree with the 10th Circuit Court and hope that the precedent is changed if you want to. But at least admit that according to case law, there is nothing illegal about states arresting illegal immigrants. It couldn't be more clear.

What? No one's saying anything like that.

The authority to control immigration is given to Congress, not the states. That's the issue at the heart of this lawsuit.
It's like a big huge douchebag came down from the sky at the very moment you read dtugg's post and hit you in the head, rendering you incapable of deciphering even the blatant obvious. Good, I knew there was a reason.

Don't know what you are referring to. Hard to watch US TV in Indonesia...
Really? Yet a US based 'skeptics forum' comes in clear as a bell huh?

...Can you explain what you mean? If one is not profiling then everybody must have their immigration status verified, no?
No.
Anything else I can help you with?
Yes, honesty, this was a couple paragraphs before your quote:

"...The bill also clarifies that law-enforcement officers shall inquire about the immigration status only of those they "stop, detain or arrest." The earlier bill simply said "contact." The change is designed to allay fears that officers would have to examine the papers of anyone they spoke to, including crime victims and witnesses..."

Did that leave another mark?

I think, like others, Parky is seeing an undercurrent in all of this AZ stuff. Many others are too.
Then could you please enlighten us? An undercurrent of what exactly? Wait, don't tell me, bigotry, intolerance, racism? Does it ever get old?

Honest, I just don't get it. I don't get where a state government - if entrusted with anything it's one's safety, general well being and future - could be accused of, let alone proven to be, completely unrighteous and evil trying to make things better for everyone. Especially given that the elimination of the specific problem (illegal immigration) would in fact bring about many 'good things'. And at least help eliminate many of the 'bad things'. Say, rampant misuse of a very 'compassionate' welfare system and medical system. Anchor babies. Artificial suppression of certain wages.

GWB (and those before him) appear to be involved in some kind of conspiracy of apathy so as to slowly and subtley, but ultimately, base the entire US economy on the cheaper labor of illegal immigrants. It didn't work and that should be obvious. I so agree it was a really bad decision. Why can't we right that wrong? Just too politically incorrect?

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 02:36 AM

So the best reason 'you guys' can come up with for opposing this law is because 'it's just so obvious they want to enforce only this law'? I thought it was about some kind of 'conflict' with federal law? Let me guess, it doesn't matter because they're...bigots? Does it occur to any of 'you guys' that it could be, just possibly, in the best interest of the state and it's legal residents to do what they can to curb an obvious and rampant 'illegal immigration' problem?

Here's the funny thing. These laws already exist, so any argument against these laws should be levied against the federal government. Arizona is simply trying to enforce the laws already on the books because the federal government is either incapable or unwilling to enforce those laws. Change the federal laws, and the Arizona statute is rendered moot.

The fact is that Arizona very strongly feels the effects of illegal immigration. I moved here 10 years ago, and I will say that people in Arizona are a bit odd. I have my own theories as to why Arizonaricans are like they are, but part of that is how they seem to be willing to take stances without giving a **** what other people think. They are also less politically oriented than I'm accustomed to. They tend to be more pragmatic.

The problem with cheap, illegal labor is that it was only "good" for a while. For example, the first landscaping company that started using it was able to underbid competitors and make a tidy profit. Once everybody else got on board, the profit margins were back to where they were before. People got their landscaping done cheaply, and the companies were dependent on the cheap labor. You couldn't go "legal" on your own because you would go out of business.

A lot of this money was not taxed properly, but the strain on the public services was still there. Furthermore, a lot of this money went right back to Mexico. I call it reverse-tourism. Cities like tourism because it brings money into the local economy but doesn't demand as much in terms of resources as compared to the people who live there. When you have money going under the table and then being wired out of the economy, it creates a problem.

Since many of the Mexicans do not speak English (or barely so), it puts a strain on the education system as well as local governments. It costs money to print things twice. It costs money hire people to speak Spanish. It's all part of the financial burden.

Along with this comes issues with property crime, which is a problem in Arizona, especially car theft (easy to move cars across the border). When people are not settled and invested in the community, then after being arrested and released, they skip out or just assume another identity. Maybe they go back to Mexico and come back in six months or a year.

One question people ask is how can illegals afford to send money back to Mexico if they are paid so little? I have many clients in the multi-family housing industry. There are numerous cheap apartment complexes where you will find six to 10 people living in a one bedroom apartment. They hang up sheets in the living room and sleep on the floor. Because many of these units were built with master metering for water, they will wash their clothes in the bath tub instead of using the on-site laundry.

Many of them walk or bike to their jobs, so they don't spend money on vehicles and insurance. Arizona, California and New Mexico are in the top five states (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/06/28/69919.htm)for uninsured motorists, so those who do drive sometimes don't pay insurance.

Health insurance is another problem. Non-citizens make up an estimated 7% of the population (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/06/28/69919.htm) but 21% of the uninsured. Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas all have uninsured people at rates much higher than the national average.

Is this a picture of all illegals? Of course not. There are plenty who come here illegally, find a way to settle and get on the grid, and become assets rather than drains on the system. And, of course, there are plenty of natural born citizens who drain the system. The issue is adopting an immigration policy that isn't a net drain on the system.

Arizona more feels the effects of the federal immigration policy being ignored, and because they (myself included) are misfits in their own way, are willing to say and do something about it. Most people don't seem to grasp the reality of the situation.

I'm married to a resident alien (she's from Hungary). I have many friends from Europe who are here legally, and a few have been naturalized. What burns me up is that the current policies in effect have made Mexicans a protected class of sorts. Europeans, and anybody else who needs to fly to get here, are simply unable to enter the USA the way Mexicans are permitted.

In Arizona the Mexicans get special treatment. Many government documents are printed in Spanish and in English. Schools have people who speak Spanish, and I believe there are requirements in that regard. Go to any govenment agency, and you will find somebody to assist you in Spanish. What's annoying is that there are so many Spanish speakers here it's not a burden to ask somebody to bring their own translator.

Well, what about everybody else? What about my Romanian, Czech, German and Hungarian friends and relatives? They have to bring their own translator or learn English. If they don't, they are **** out of luck.

The constitution is supposed to offer equal protection, but it certainly seems that's not the case. All of our laws are written in English, and we have years of legal precedent in written in English. It's simply not possible to translate everything to another language and always keep the same meaning. We have to pick a language, and I argue that English is that language. I can't properly monitor the activities of my government without knowing Spanish. I don't know if their "translations" are accurate or not.

To me, in the USA it's equal protection if everyone is required to do whatever it takes to understand English. That Spanish speakers get special treatment is simply unfair. I find it hypocritical that people bitch about the Arizona law as unfairly targeting Mexicans when they granted amnesty to illegals that grossly benefited Mexicans. After all, millions of people from around the world were not allowed into the USA over the years. Why should the ones that came illegally be granted special treatment? If that wasn't discriminatory, then what is?

BTW, Arizona is suffering more than most other states in this recession because right at the start the illegal worker law went into effect. In the fall of 2007 there was a mass exodus of illegals in anticipation of the January 1, 2008, law taking effect. I had clients whose apartments dropped from 90% occupancy to 60% in just a matter of a couple of months. People just took off in the middle of the night. In commercial real estate, values are determined by rent rolls. I can't tell you how many apartments are now owned by banks because even at full occupancy (which they can't reach now), the market rent rates would be insufficient to make payments on the loans. The market here has just collapsed.

It was kind of stupid to try to undo years of dependency all at once, but now that they have started, it's a good idea to rip the band-aid all the way off. Hopefully the state can rebuild, and the government can regulate immigration in a positive way.

Frank Newgent

21st June 2010, 06:18 AM

How do you question the immigration status of anyone for no reason without profiling?
Oh I don't know, ask for their ID? A white caucasian refusing (or unable) to offer his ID or mention his name wouldn't be considered 'suspect' of something? They wouldn't be 'detained' or questioned further? "I don't have any ID and yer not gonna get anything out of me." "Oh, well, if you put it that way. Fine. Go on your way." All because, of course, the big bad policeman would be fearing federal lawsuits, and stuff, for asking such basic questions they're were entitled to ask not a year ago.

There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID.

Don't know what you are referring to. Hard to watch US TV in Indonesia...
Really? Yet a US based 'skeptics forum' comes in clear as a bell huh?

It does. What does local internet service have to do with a different country's television coverage?

...Can you explain what you mean? If one is not profiling then everybody must have their immigration status verified, no?
No.

Confident, then, you won't be detained for no apparent reason. As you should be able to be, by the way. But history can be ugly.

Anything else I can help you with?
Yes, honesty, this was a couple paragraphs before your quote:

"...The bill also clarifies that law-enforcement officers shall inquire about the immigration status only of those they "stop, detain or arrest." The earlier bill simply said "contact." The change is designed to allay fears that officers would have to examine the papers of anyone they spoke to, including crime victims and witnesses..."

There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID.

Did that leave another mark?

Only on the US Constitution my friend.

KoihimeNakamura

21st June 2010, 07:02 AM

A lot of people don't. Actually makes ID polices hilarious.

JoeTheJuggler

21st June 2010, 07:35 AM

We could make their jobs a lot easier if we didn't make so many things illegal. Fortunately, making their jobs "easier" is not on the agenda.

Do you know what the law calls itself?

The last two lines of the law are as follows:

Sec. 12. Short title
26 This act may be cited as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
27 Neighborhoods Act".

It very definitely was promoted as a way to help state and local law enforcement officers do their jobs.

ETA: And on top of that, I think the Escobar suit is saying not simply that it would make things difficult, it's saying it would stifle law enforcement. Either it would be impossible to implement the law (to verify the immigration status of everyone they contact), or it would make them susceptible to discrimination lawsuits if they only verify the status of some of the people they come into contact with.

________
Back to the subject of field preemption and the idea that the Arizona law is not an immigration law (that it makes no law regarding immigration): the law actually makes it a state misdemeanor for someone to be in the state illegally.

This part is definitely not within state authority. Again, the Constitution calls on Congress to make a uniform policy in the field of naturalization (which as I've shown includes the subject of treatment of all aliens, including illegals).

Neally

21st June 2010, 08:08 AM

There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID. But there is a federal law requiring non-citizens to carry documentation proving they are in the U.S. legally.

funk de fino

21st June 2010, 08:52 AM

Oh man! Where's the laughing dog?

Probably hidden in the kennel I heard its a Chihuahua.

JoeTheJuggler

21st June 2010, 12:02 PM

But there is a federal law requiring non-citizens to carry documentation proving they are in the U.S. legally.

And of course if law enforcement officers could magically know who is and who is not required to carry ID, this wouldn't even be an issue.

For this law to be put into effect, police will have to verify the status of people whose status isn't known to the police, and they can't decide who to verify based on racial profiling. So. . . how do they decide whom to ask for ID (or whom to detain for lack of ID)?

funk de fino

21st June 2010, 12:34 PM

And of course it is easier to defend this if it is taken in isolation to the other laws being touted by the AZ leaders. It would also be a folly.

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 01:00 PM

Do you know what the law calls itself?

The last two lines of the law are as follows:

It very definitely was promoted as a way to help state and local law enforcement officers do their jobs.

Helping someone do their job does not necessarily mean making it easier. Giving cops vehicles allows them to make traffic stops on the highway. It creates more work for them than if they had to do it all on foot because they actually would not be able to enforce highway traffic laws on foot.

ETA: And on top of that, I think the Escobar suit is saying not simply that it would make things difficult, it's saying it would stifle law enforcement. Either it would be impossible to implement the law (to verify the immigration status of everyone they contact), or it would make them susceptible to discrimination lawsuits if they only verify the status of some of the people they come into contact with.

Yes, I'm aware of what he said. Repeating it doesn't make it any more valid. I already went into great detail about how the statute could be implemented without risking discrimination lawsuits or substantially adding work for LEOs. You are simply wrong about the "contact" thing because the statute has been amended to refer to detaining and arresting, not simply contacting.

Back to the subject of field preemption and the idea that the Arizona law is not an immigration law (that it makes no law regarding immigration): the law actually makes it a state misdemeanor for someone to be in the state illegally.

This part is definitely not within state authority. Again, the Constitution calls on Congress to make a uniform policy in the field of naturalization (which as I've shown includes the subject of treatment of all aliens, including illegals).

You keep making this assertion, but as I read the arguments and understand the constitution, you're way off base. Legal scholars disagree, so this won't be resolved until it hits the courts. But, hey, even if that part is struck down, it really doesn't make much difference. They can still send illegals to to the proper authorities. They do that now. In fact, they already check the immigration status of some people. This just formalizes it as a requirement.

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 01:20 PM

And of course if law enforcement officers could magically know who is and who is not required to carry ID, this wouldn't even be an issue.

For this law to be put into effect, police will have to verify the status of people whose status isn't known to the police, and they can't decide who to verify based on racial profiling. So. . . how do they decide whom to ask for ID (or whom to detain for lack of ID)?

I covered this already: Ask everyone they stop, detain or arrest (what the statute requires) if they are legal citizens. Say it out loud yourself: "Are you a legal citizen of the United States of America?" It took me three seconds. How about you? Figure 10 seconds for a response. That's not much of a burden.

If they answer no, then ask them for their immigration paperwork, whch they are required by law to carry. If they don't have it, there's your probable cause. Sure, some people will lie, but people have a tendency to answer whatever questions cops ask even if they are not required to do so by law. Even if it's nowhere near 100% effective, it's a small burden on the police and will certainly nab some illegals.

Beyond that comes the determination of probable cause. What do you think probable cause should be?

JoeTheJuggler

21st June 2010, 03:49 PM

I covered this already: Ask everyone they stop, detain or arrest (what the statute requires) if they are legal citizens. Say it out loud yourself: "Are you a legal citizen of the United States of America?" It took me three seconds. How about you? Figure 10 seconds for a response. That's not much of a burden.

If the person says yes, I'm legal, do they let it drop?

That doesn't sound like what this law calls for at all. It calls for law enforcement officers to detain people in order to verify their status with federal authorities even without a prior felony or warrant.

Helping someone do their job does not necessarily mean making it easier. Giving cops vehicles allows them to make traffic stops on the highway. It creates more work for them than if they had to do it all on foot because they actually would not be able to enforce highway traffic laws on foot.
I don't buy that line of reasoning at all. Giving a cop a car makes his job more difficult?

You keep making this assertion, but as I read the arguments and understand the constitution, you're way off base. Legal scholars disagree, so this won't be resolved until it hits the courts. But, hey, even if that part is struck down, it really doesn't make much difference. They can still send illegals to to the proper authorities. They do that now. In fact, they already check the immigration status of some people. This just formalizes it as a requirement.
No. Under current law they cannot arrest someone suspected of being illegal without a prior felony or arrest warrant. The Arizona law conflicts with U.S. Law on this point.

Also, it creates a state misdemeanor for being in the state illegally. This is certainly part of immigration policy, and regulation of this field is reserved to the Congress. I've quoted a couple of Supreme Court decisions that say exactly that. The strongest I've seen against it was the circuit court decision dtugg cited that seems to say Congress doesn't have that field to the exclusion of the states. But the Supreme Court cases I cited used very strong language in saying the field is Congress'.

At any rate, you're right that they could just strike down those bits of the Arizona law that conflict with federal law. So what you'd have left would just be a restatement of federal law. So what's the point? Isn't it just scapegoating and exploiting anti-immigrant sentiment for political purposes?

JoeTheJuggler

21st June 2010, 03:57 PM

Here's the funny thing. These laws already exist, so any argument against these laws should be levied against the federal government. Arizona is simply trying to enforce the laws already on the books because the federal government is either incapable or unwilling to enforce those laws. Change the federal laws, and the Arizona statute is rendered moot.

I lifted this out of context, so I will clarify that by "any argument" here you are only talking about arguments that allege bigotry or some such. Because the preemption argument (which is very likely exactly what the federal lawsuit will argue) is not one that can be made against the federal government. (No body is going to argue that state law has supremacy over federal law, because the U.S. Constitution specifically says the reverse.)

At any rate, if this law changes nothing at all, what does it do?

And it is false that the U.S. is incapable or unwilling to enforce immigration laws. Not counting Mexicans attempting to enter illegally caught near the border and returned to Mexico immediately, there were some 350,000 ICE removals (that is, deportations and other removals of illegal aliens to their native lands by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in FY 2008. Linky (http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0810/081023washington.htm).

Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether the federal government is doing enough, but it is false to claim that they are not enforcing immigration laws.

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 04:22 PM

I lifted this out of context, so I will clarify that by "any argument" here you are only talking about arguments that allege bigotry or some such. Because the preemption argument (which is very likely exactly what the federal lawsuit will argue) is not one that can be made against the federal government. (No body is going to argue that state law has supremacy over federal law, because the U.S. Constitution specifically says the reverse.)

At any rate, if this law changes nothing at all, what does it do?
Did I say that it changes nothing? What it does is formalize and require enforcement of existing laws. Do you understand that some police forces in Arizona already check the immigration status of people they arrest? They already raid businesses (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90852/7025266.html) to check for illegals. At one point some Phoenix (Maricopa county) police officers had ICE agent status. Even without it, they have conducted raids (http://www.kpho.com/news/21328387/detail.html) and sent people over to immigration.

What this law is doing is requiring police forces in the state to make reasonable attempts to determine immigration status. They are already allowed to do that. Why do you think a state requiring such a policy by statute is illegal and/or unethical/immoral/wrong in some way?

And it is false that the U.S. is incapable or unwilling to enforce immigration laws. Not counting Mexicans attempting to enter illegally caught near the border and returned to Mexico immediately, there were some 350,000 ICE removals (that is, deportations and other removals of illegal aliens to their native lands by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in FY 2008. Linky (http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0810/081023washington.htm).
There are an estimated (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/illegal.pdf) 11,500,000 illegals in the USA according to Homeland Security. I think it is fair to say that the federal government is unwilling or unable to deal with the problem despite the fact that do deport a small percentage of illegals.

Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether the federal government is doing enough, but it is false to claim that they are not enforcing immigration laws.
Whatever. Since in other posts I have already made references to ways in which the federal government deals with illegals, it is disingenuous and petty to pretend that I was making an extreme claim that they did not do any enforcement whatsoever.

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 04:35 PM

If the person says yes, I'm legal, do they let it drop?
I addressed this in other posts already.

That doesn't sound like what this law calls for at all. It calls for law enforcement officers to detain people in order to verify their status with federal authorities even without a prior felony or warrant.
What a warped interpretation of the law.

I don't buy that line of reasoning at all. Giving a cop a car makes his job more difficult?
You're moving the goalposts in an attempt to bicker. You said the alleged goal was make the job easier but that it was actually creating more work. Therefore, their job is not easier. I simply pointed out an example of how better equipping the police can result in them having to do more work but at the same time make their job easier. It's a silly point to argue since all you're doing is arguing over whether their short-hand title for the statute is misleading. I don't give a **** because it's not actually part of the statute.

No. Under current law they cannot arrest someone suspected of being illegal without a prior felony or arrest warrant. The Arizona law conflicts with U.S. Law on this point.
I believe you are incorrect. It's done here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726259338825191.html) in Maricopa county. Have they been stopped? Are you familiar with 287g enforcement? Maricopa lost its status, but other departments still have it.

Also, it creates a state misdemeanor for being in the state illegally. This is certainly part of immigration policy, and regulation of this field is reserved to the Congress. I've quoted a couple of Supreme Court decisions that say exactly that. The strongest I've seen against it was the circuit court decision dtugg cited that seems to say Congress doesn't have that field to the exclusion of the states. But the Supreme Court cases I cited used very strong language in saying the field is Congress'.
Please stop repeating yourself when I have already told you that I have seen your arguments and disagree with your interpretation. Others have explained it to you the same way I have. We'll just wait for the courts to settle it. We can bet off-line if you'd like.

At any rate, you're right that they could just strike down those bits of the Arizona law that conflict with federal law. So what you'd have left would just be a restatement of federal law. So what's the point? Isn't it just scapegoating and exploiting anti-immigrant sentiment for political purposes?
Are illegals a problem or not? This law will result in more illegals being discovered and removed. You can call that "political purposes" if you want, but I see the resistance to it politically motivated.

Frank Newgent

21st June 2010, 05:03 PM

If the person says yes, I'm legal, do they let it drop?
I addressed this in other posts already.

Dime otra vez, por favor :D

JoeTheJuggler

21st June 2010, 06:13 PM

I addressed this in other posts already.
I don't think you did. You just said that people are apt to answer questions police ask even if they don't have to. So if they say "Yes, I'm legal" but don't have any ID, do police just let it drop?

It's a silly point to argue since all you're doing is arguing over whether their short-hand title for the statute is misleading. I don't give a **** because it's not actually part of the statute.
The short title is actually part of the statute. See the text of the law (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf)--the very last part on page 16.

I believe you are incorrect. It's done here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726259338825191.html) in Maricopa county. Have they been stopped? Are you familiar with 287g enforcement? Maricopa lost its status, but other departments still have it.
USC Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter II Part VSection 1252c says:
§ 1252c. Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens
(a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who—
(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and
(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction,
but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.
Link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001252---c000-.html).

Are illegals a problem or not? This law will result in more illegals being discovered and removed.
I doubt that very much. And again the idea that the federal government is not enforcing immigration laws is factually false. In fact, in the most recent year for which statistics are available (2008), enforcement numbers were at record highs:
Reflecting the impact of heightened, strategic enforcement efforts, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts reached record levels in virtually every enforcement category in fiscal year 2008, from criminal, gang and fugitive alien arrests to federal prosecutions and formal deportations. The significant increase is a direct result of ICE's expanded interior immigration enforcement strategy, focusing on three priorities - targeting criminal and fugitive aliens; eliminating the magnet of illegal employment; and dismantling the infrastructure that supports illegal immigration including the criminal organizations engaged in wide-spread identity theft and document fraud.
Linky (http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0810/081023washington.htm) (again)

You can call that "political purposes" if you want, but I see the resistance to it politically motivated.
Yes I think it's political purposes since their primary argument, that the federal government doesn't enforce immigrations laws, is false. Not only are they enforcing immigration laws, but enforcement is at record levels.

dtugg

21st June 2010, 06:35 PM

USC Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter II Part VSection 1252c says:

Link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001252---c000-.html)

We have gone over this before. You must be being intentionally dishonest now.

Anyway, again.

This court agrees that § 1252c did not authorize Vasquez's arrest. Nevertheless, we further conclude that § 1252c does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, § 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law.

U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2908896292414566455&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

JoeTheJuggler

21st June 2010, 06:47 PM

We have gone over this before. You must be being intentionally dishonest now.
I'm not being dishonest. UncaYimmy has restated the same things--including the canard that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws, so I'm mostly restating and supporting my position.

U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2908896292414566455&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

Yes. I recognize that the strongest argument you're making against my weakest (field preemption) is this circuit court decision. I've already cited two Supreme Court cases that hold in very strong language that naturalization (including the treatment of aliens) is the exclusive area of Congress to the exclusion of the states.

As you have said, Vasquez-Alvarez holds that there is no conflict. Presumably if there were a conflict, the federal law would preempt the state law. You've already ceded that the Arizona law is in conflict with federal law. So unless you're changing your position on that point, it would seem you agree with the stronger preemption argument (conflict preemption) but not the weaker one (field preemption). I think if this lawsuit goes forward that the SCOTUS will very likely agree on both points. (That is, accept the conflict preemption argument but reject the field preemption following more recent trends.)

dtugg

21st June 2010, 07:07 PM

I'm not being dishonest. UncaYimmy has restated the same things--including the canard that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws, so I'm mostly restating and supporting my position.

Which has nothing to do with my point.

Yes. I recognize that the strongest argument you're making against my weakest (field preemption) is this circuit court decision.

No. It is against conflict preemption. You would realize this if you actually read the opinion. There is no conflict, according to the 10th Circuit Court because "§ 1252c does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, § 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law."

I've already cited two Supreme Court cases that hold in very strong language that naturalization (including the treatment of aliens) is the exclusive area of Congress to the exclusion of the states.

Yes, the feds make the rules. But states can enforce them.

As you have said, Vasquez-Alvarez holds that there is no conflict. Presumably if there were a conflict, the federal law would preempt the state law.

Yes.

You've already ceded that the Arizona law is in conflict with federal law.

No I didn't. You're just lying now.

So unless you're changing your position on that point, it would seem you agree with the stronger preemption argument (conflict preemption) but not the weaker one (field preemption).

I didn't change my position.

I think if this lawsuit goes forward that the SCOTUS will very likely agree on both points. (That is, accept the conflict preemption argument but reject the field preemption following more recent trends.)

Maybe they will reverse the precedent set by U.S. v Alverez but I doubt it. Anyway, according to existing case law, there is nothing illegal about states arresting illegal aliens.

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 08:15 PM

I don't think you did. You just said that people are apt to answer questions police ask even if they don't have to. So if they say "Yes, I'm legal" but don't have any ID, do police just let it drop?

Read post #130.

The short title is actually part of the statute. See the text of the law (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf)--the very last part on page 16.
Is this how it is over here in the Politics forum? Belaboring the tiniest of points as if they have any significance? By "part of the statute" I am referring to what the statute does. It's just a frigging title. They could have called it Rufus for all the difference it would make to anything in this discussion. Why you even brought it up is beyond me.

USC Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter II Part VSection 1252c says:

Link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001252---c000-.html).
And yet they are still arresting illegals here in Maricopa county, and nobody is stopping them. Could it be that all blustering aside, they really can't? The 287g stuff also says, (http://vlex.com/vid/powers-immigration-officers-employees-19271844) "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State - (A) to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or (B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States."

But, really, if you want to argue about the ability of states to assist the federal government, take it up with this guy (http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizona-bill-text.html). He cites a court decision that says, "The Tenth Circuit’s conclusion was unequivocal: Section 1252c "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law." Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d at 1295. "

I doubt that very much.
You're foolish to doubt. What Arizona wants to do statewide is essentially what Maricopa county was doing with ICE, and they were very successful.

And again the idea that the federal government is not enforcing immigration laws is factually false. In fact, in the most recent year for which statistics are available (2008), enforcement numbers were at record highs:
Are you having fun? Because I think it's just stupid. I already explained that I in no way implied they were doing nothing. The fact is, regardless of the "record highs" there are literally millions of illegals in the USA. If it's raining outside, putting a rubber booty on one foot is not dealing with the problem.

Yes I think it's political purposes since their primary argument, that the federal government doesn't enforce immigrations laws, is false. Not only are they enforcing immigration laws, but enforcement is at record levels.
It's grossly inadequate. NYC has about 35,000 sworn officers covering a relatively confined area. The Border Patrol has half as many officers, and that's after recently doubling the size. NYC has a population of 8M where as estimates for the number of illegals is 10M to 20M.

dtugg

21st June 2010, 08:25 PM

But, really, if you want to argue about the ability of states to assist the federal government, take it up with this guy (http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizona-bill-text.html). He cites a court decision that says, "The Tenth Circuit’s conclusion was unequivocal: Section 1252c "does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws. Instead, Section 1252c merely creates an additional vehicle for the enforcement of federal immigration law." Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d at 1295.

I've cited this decision to him numerous times. I am not sure what his problem is but he keeps ignoring it.

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 08:27 PM

I'm not being dishonest. UncaYimmy has restated the same things--including the canard that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws, so I'm mostly restating and supporting my position.

You are being intellectually dishonest. I will amend my statement to say that the federal government is unwilling and/or unable to adequately enforce current immigration. Happy now? Because it doesn't change anything about the legality of the law or why people want it.

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 08:38 PM

I've cited this decision to him numerous times. I am not sure what his problem is but he keeps ignoring it.

It's a side effect of deciding your position first.

What I don't get is this notion that it's somehow an excuse for institutionalizing racism or something like that. There are 10M to 20M illegals in the country, so clearly enforcement is seriously coming up short. The feds have already formalized a system to work more cooperatively with local jurisdictions in enforcing the laws, so clearly they recognize that assistance is needed.

Arizona is essentially requiring local jurisdictions to assist the feds in enforcing these laws. If the feds are worried about racial profiling or whatever, then work with Arizona to ensure that doesn't happen. Give them advice on what constitutes reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Make it easier for them to do it right.

If you don't want them doing it, then come right out and say so. Introduce legislation that would expressly prohibit it. It's chicken-**** to fight this in the courts. Just amend the law and remove all doubt.

Piscivore

21st June 2010, 08:50 PM

It's a side effect of deciding your position first.

What I don't get is this notion that it's somehow an excuse for institutionalizing racism or something like that. There are 10M to 20M illegals in the country, so clearly enforcement is seriously coming up short. The feds have already formalized a system to work more cooperatively with local jurisdictions in enforcing the laws, so clearly they recognize that assistance is needed.

You know, when Prohibition failed this spectacularly, they gave it up.

DDWW

21st June 2010, 08:51 PM

Sorry, I've been away awhile.

Any more news of vital importance to our country coming out of Ecuador television by our most illustrious national leaders?

DDWW

dtugg

21st June 2010, 08:54 PM

Sorry, I've been away awhile.

Any more news of vital importance to our country coming out of Ecuador television by our most illustrious national leaders?

DDWW

What a stupid bitch Hillary is. Jan Brewer was justifiably outraged over that.

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 09:26 PM

You know, when Prohibition failed this spectacularly, they gave it up.

I don't believe that prohibition and immigration laws are comparable. Now, if every state adopts the same policies as Arizona does with this statute, and the Mexican border continues to get serious attention, then we can look decide if it's really a failure or not.

Jekyll's Guest

21st June 2010, 09:27 PM

I begged a question before, but it seemed to get passed by:

Does anyone see states that would have been neutral or even opposed to the Arizona law, standing by them purely as a defense of states rights?

Jekyll's Guest

21st June 2010, 09:30 PM

I don't believe that prohibition and immigration laws are comparable. Now, if every state adopts the same policies as Arizona does with this statute, and the Mexican border continues to get serious attention, then we can look decide if it's really a failure or not.

I also find it a weak comparison.

One of the big reasons prohibition failed was that it was incredibly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans. Stronger immigration controls seem quite popular.

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 09:56 PM

I also find it a weak comparison.

One of the big reasons prohibition failed was that it was incredibly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans. Stronger immigration controls seem quite popular.

Not to get too sidetracked, but consumption of alcohol was not prohibited. Production by individuals was not prohibited, just limited. The comparison to immigration fails on many other levels as well.

Piscivore

21st June 2010, 09:57 PM

I don't believe that prohibition and immigration laws are comparable.
Why not? They are both seeking to control an activity that a lot of people- immigrants and employers- don't want stopped, so they just ignore the law.

Uncayimmy

21st June 2010, 10:12 PM

Why not? They are both seeking to control an activity that a lot of people- immigrants and employers- don't want stopped, so they just ignore the law.

That's one way of phrasing it so there is a similarity. Continue with your train of thought and tell me all the other ways in which they are similar and justify your assertion.

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 07:16 AM

That's one way of phrasing it so there is a similarity. Continue with your train of thought and tell me all the other ways in which they are similar and justify your assertion.

That is my train of thought. Some people want to stop a behaviour that a signifigantly larger portion of people don't seem to want stopped.

Why don't you "phrase it" to show me where the differences are?

defaultdotxbe

22nd June 2010, 07:48 AM

Why not? They are both seeking to control an activity that a lot of people- immigrants and employers- don't want stopped, so they just ignore the law.
well the immigrants opinion doesnt really count if they arent here legally, and i would wager those who emply illegal immigrant labor make up a small minority of the population

im sure i can find a large contingent of convicted felons who feel laws against armed robbery are unpopular too

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 09:42 AM

well the immigrants opinion doesnt really count if they arent here legally,
"Well, the opinion of drinkers doesn't count because they are criminals".

The illegal immigrants are not here legally because we've made it difficult if not impossible for most of them to come here legally. It is a difficult process entagled in red tape and beaurocracy for an educated, English speaking person to immigrate legally into this country, how is an uneducated, illiterate Latino trying to escape crushing poverty, rampant corruption, and drug violence supposed to do it?

and i would wager those who emply illegal immigrant labor make up a small minority of the population
"I would wager those producing or smuggling the bootleg hooch make up a small minority of the population"

"Minority" or not, they are just reacting to market forces. Wages are so disproportiontely high in this country and Canada (compared to the rest of the Americas) that the smart, the courageous, and the motivated don't really have a choice that to risk anything to come here to do better than they could at home. That's certainly better motivaton to break a law than wanting to get wasted, isn't it?

im sure i can find a large contingent of convicted felons who feel laws against armed robbery are unpopular too
Could you? Go right ahead. I don't have to look for the people, American citizens or otherwise -on every side of partisan "sides" and among the unaffiliated- that find our current immigration policies a grotesque clusterhump.

Adressing the sentiment behind that smug little comment, laws are not sarosanct and holy just because they are laws. Making it a crime to not vigorously enforce bad laws is just compounding the problem.

ZirconBlue

22nd June 2010, 09:56 AM

Yeah, I am sure that the fact that illegal immigration causes the state problems

<snip>

Can you elaborate on these "problems"? I'm hearing a lot reports lately that seem to indicate that even illegal immigration is a net benefit, economically.

defaultdotxbe

22nd June 2010, 11:34 AM

"Well, the opinion of drinkers doesn't count because they are criminals".

The illegal immigrants are not here legally because we've made it difficult if not impossible for most of them to come here legally. It is a difficult process entagled in red tape and beaurocracy for an educated, English speaking person to immigrate legally into this country, how is an uneducated, illiterate Latino trying to escape crushing poverty, rampant corruption, and drug violence supposed to do it?

"I would wager those producing or smuggling the bootleg hooch make up a small minority of the population"

"Minority" or not, they are just reacting to market forces. Wages are so disproportiontely high in this country and Canada (compared to the rest of the Americas) that the smart, the courageous, and the motivated don't really have a choice that to risk anything to come here to do better than they could at home. That's certainly better motivaton to break a law than wanting to get wasted, isn't it?

Could you? Go right ahead. I don't have to look for the people, American citizens or otherwise -on every side of partisan "sides" and among the unaffiliated- that find our current immigration policies a grotesque clusterhump.

Adressing the sentiment behind that smug little comment, laws are not sarosanct and holy just because they are laws. Making it a crime to not vigorously enforce bad laws is just compounding the problem.
so why favor those who can jump a fence? why not just send busses down to mexico and bring them all up here? or forget that, just tax the legal residents and send all the mexicans checks

and why mexicans? why not the poor and oppressed in other countries? or is it just out of sight out of mind because theres more the river for them to cross?

i know plenty of legal immigrants from mexico, almost all of them are uneducated, many of them do not speak english, and yet they were able to to get here legally. and most them dont want the border jumpers getting a free pass

now im in favor of making it easier to immigrate, but until it is i dont see why the government should concern itself with the financial difficulties of people who are not legal residents

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 11:52 AM

so why favor those who can jump a fence?
It's a little more involved than that, isn't it? The ones from Central and South America have to travel at least a third of a continent, often on foot, through another country (Mexico) demonstrably hostile to them just to approach the border. Then they, and the Mexicans that join them, have to cross an increasingly deadly drug war zone and after that one of the harshest deserts in NA.

Why the hell wouldn't we want people with that kind of drive and courage?

why not just send busses down to mexico and bring them all up here? or forget that, just tax the legal residents and send all the mexicans checks
Oh, I see you're arguing that all the imigrant's money is going south. Well, putting aside the issue of whether that is true or not, what is the problem with that? Wouldn't dollars flowing south help Mexico and other American countries to prosper, raising their standard of living, giving them money to spend on US products, and thereby lowering the incentive to for their people come here in the first place? Isn't that a free market in action?

and why mexicans? why not the poor and oppressed in other countries?
Why not, indeed? My family were the poor and oppressed in their countries.
""Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

And do you really think that the "illegals" are just Mexicans?

now im in favor of making it easier to immigrate,
If that were true, then why support a law that calls for increased enforcement of a policy that you already recognise is bad?

Uncayimmy

22nd June 2010, 12:37 PM

That is my train of thought. Some people want to stop a behaviour that a signifigantly larger portion of people don't seem to want stopped.

Why don't you "phrase it" to show me where the differences are?

You have given one similarity, so I will give you one difference: Illegal aliens are humans, not a substance that can be created and consumed. So, we're even.

Uncayimmy

22nd June 2010, 12:41 PM

Can you elaborate on these "problems"? I'm hearing a lot reports lately that seem to indicate that even illegal immigration is a net benefit, economically.

I went into great detail in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6053069#post6053069). If you want to argue that we should have unchecked, open immigration, that's a federal issue.

ZirconBlue

22nd June 2010, 02:15 PM

I went into great detail in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6053069#post6053069). If you want to argue that we should have unchecked, open immigration, that's a federal issue.

I don't want to argue any such thing. (At least not right now.) It just seems that people are jumping to correct "problems" that don't necessarily need correction. Yes, illegals overconsume healthcare, and, possibly, K-12 education. But, a great many of them pay taxes, including Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, that they will never receive benefits from. If, indeed, they provide a net economic benefit, then it seems pretty stupid to decide to get tough on them in the middle of a massive recession.

WildCat

22nd June 2010, 02:21 PM

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 02:43 PM

You have given one similarity, so I will give you one difference: Illegal aliens are humans, not a substance that can be created and consumed.

And what does that mean, exactly? Seems to me that such a fact should sway considerations of enfocement to leniency and mercy, not zero-tolerance and inflexibility. After all, it's a much different matter to smash a barrel of bathtub gin with an axe handle than it is the head of a Guatemalan. Well, it is for some people, anyway.

I went into great detail in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6053069#post6053069).

You went into a great deal of assertion, not a lot of evidence.

I really doubt the few who pay payroll taxes compensate for all the expenses, let alone the effects (such as more people requiring government assistance) of lowering the wage scale for low-skilled jobs.
"Doubt" is not evidence.

WildCat

22nd June 2010, 02:48 PM

"Doubt" is not evidence.
I'm not the one who made the claim, I expressed doubt over ZirconBlue's claim. The onus is on ZirconBlue to support his claim, not on me to disprove it.

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 02:53 PM

I'm not the one who made the claim, I expressed doubt over ZirconBlue's claim. The onus is on ZirconBlue to support his claim, not on me to disprove it.

Actually, ZB's "claims" are an expression of doubt about UY's elaborate claims.

This is why I said partisan politics is the most obvious symptom of endemic human stupidity- everyone is arguing the "facts" their "side" believes without any evidence.

ETA: And throwing out wild-assed allegations to see what sticks. See below.

dtugg

22nd June 2010, 02:59 PM

And look, now Mexico has joined in the lawsuit! (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4545680-mexico-joins-ariz-lawsuit) :eye-poppi

There's a shocker. Of course the Mexican government is in favor of poor Mexicans going to the US and sending money back to Mexico. And further, it wouldn't even be surprising if the Mexican government works for a certain drug cartel (the Sinaloa cartel, headed by the second most wanted man in the world according to Forbes).

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 03:53 PM

There's a shocker. Of course the Mexican government is in favor of poor Mexicans going to the US and sending money back to Mexico. And further, it wouldn't even be surprising if the Mexican government works for a certain drug cartel (the Sinaloa cartel, headed by the second most wanted man in the world according to Forbes).
Glen Beck would be so proud. Work "gay marriage" in there somewhere and Fox might give you your own show.

dtugg

22nd June 2010, 03:55 PM

Glen Beck would be so proud. Work "gay marriage" in there somewhere and Fox might give you your own show.

Do you deny that it is good for Mexico for poor Mexicans to go to the US and send money back? Do you deny that the Mexican government is largly corrupted by drug cartels?

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 04:08 PM

Do you deny that it is good for Mexico for poor Mexicans to go to the US and send money back?
It is good for poor Mexicans. It seems logical that it would be good in that way for "Mexico". Do you have any reason that that is a bad thing?

Do you deny that the Mexican government is largly corrupted by drug cartels?
I don't know. Do you have proof that they are?

dtugg

22nd June 2010, 04:18 PM

It is good for poor Mexicans. It seems logical that it would be good in that way for "Mexico". Do you have any reason that that is a bad thing?

Well, it's bad in the sense that the money goes out of the USA and into Mexico.

I don't know. Do you have proof that they are?

It is a well known fact that many officials in Mexico are in the pocket of drug cartels, specifically the Sinaloa Cartel.

Here is one news story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/world/americas/12mexico.html

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 04:27 PM

Well, it's bad in the sense that the money goes out of the USA and into Mexico.
Why is that bad?

It is a well known fact that many officials in Mexico are in the pocket of drug cartels, specifically the Sinaloa Cartel.

Here is one news story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/world/americas/12mexico.html
"Some of the people who are supposed to be pursuing him are apparently on his payroll" is not the same thing as (and a far cry from) "the Mexican government works for [the Sinaloa cartel]", is it?

Did the US government "work for" Capone?

dtugg

22nd June 2010, 04:37 PM

Why is that bad?

It's bad for the USA because that means less money in the being spent here. Obviously it is good for Mexico because more money for them. That was my original point.

"Some of the people who are supposed to be pursuing him are apparently on his payroll" is not the same thing as (and a far cry from) "the Mexican government works for [the Sinaloa cartel]", is it?

I didn't say they did, I said it wouldn't be surprising if they did.

Did the US government "work for" Capone?

Some officials certainly did.

Bill Thompson

22nd June 2010, 04:47 PM

Why did people say Hillary was smart?

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 04:48 PM

It's bad for the USA because that means less money in the being spent here. Obviously it is good for Mexico because more money for them. That was more original point.
Mexico doesn't buy stuff from the USA?

Wouldn't a healthier Mexican economy be good for the USA? Wouldn't having more jobs at home available reduce the incentive to come here?

I didn't say they did, I said it wouldn't be surprising if they did.
Seems a pretty big leap from "some officials" to "the government" to be so unsurprised, isn't it?

Some officials certainly did.
Did that include the President? A controlling number of congressmen? Or was that a "no" in there?

Drysdale

22nd June 2010, 04:53 PM

An honest question to the lawyers here.

If the feds do sue and happen to lose does that open the door for every state to pass their own immigration laws within the parameters of the federal law?

dtugg

22nd June 2010, 05:00 PM

Mexico doesn't buy stuff from the USA?

Wouldn't a healthier Mexican economy be good for the USA? Wouldn't having more jobs at home available reduce the incentive to come here?

For the sake of the argument, I will concede this point. Either way, Mexico wants their poor people to come to the US, illegally or not because it will boost their economy. So they will obviously oppose this bill. That was my point.

Seems a pretty big leap from "some officials" to "the government" to be so unsurprised, isn't it?

Why would I be unsurprised? Corruption is rampant in Mexico. If it extends all the way up to Calderon, whoopty do.

Did that include the President? A controlling number of congressmen? Or was that a "no" in there?

Because it didn't happen in the US it means it doesn't/won't happen in Mexico?

dtugg

22nd June 2010, 05:01 PM

An honest question to the lawyers here.

If the feds do sue and happen to lose does that open the door for every state to pass their own immigration laws within the parameters of the federal law?

I am not a lawyer, but I think it is pretty self evident that they could if they wanted to.

WildCat

22nd June 2010, 05:15 PM

"Some of the people who are supposed to be pursuing him are apparently on his payroll" is not the same thing as (and a far cry from) "the Mexican government works for [the Sinaloa cartel]", is it?

Did the US government "work for" Capone?
I don't know about the ruling party, but there are well-documented instances of Mexican military escorting drug smugglers across the border into the US. Here's an MSNBC story on it:

pEKUJGT2xr4

WildCat

22nd June 2010, 05:17 PM

WildCat

22nd June 2010, 05:23 PM

"Doubt" is not evidence.
Hey, if you think artificially (because laws are being broken) lowering wages so more people rely on government assistance might be good for the economy, so be it. Not the topic of this thread, but I always thought liberals were for higher wages and benefits?

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 05:34 PM

Hey, if you think artificially (because laws are being broken) lowering wages so more people rely on government assistance might be good for the economy, so be it.
Do you have evidence that this actually occurs? Do you you have evidence the lower wages are "artificial"?

Not the topic of this thread, but I always thought liberals were for higher wages and benefits?
Who said I was a "liberal"? Because I don't agree with you? Or are you saying you are, since you seem to be in favour of protectionist laws to keep wages elevated above market?

Uncayimmy

22nd June 2010, 06:38 PM

DDWW

22nd June 2010, 07:24 PM

Can you elaborate on these "problems"? I'm hearing a lot reports lately that seem to indicate that even illegal immigration is a net benefit, economically.

Uh, thousands of dead Americans?

DD (just a guess) WW

Uncayimmy

22nd June 2010, 07:30 PM

And what does that mean, exactly?
Humans commit crimes. Substances don't.
Humans can walk, talk and think. Substances don't.

Seems to me that such a fact should sway considerations of enfocement to leniency and mercy, not zero-tolerance and inflexibility. After all, it's a much different matter to smash a barrel of bathtub gin with an axe handle than it is the head of a Guatemalan. Well, it is for some people, anyway.
Irrelevant to the analogy which you have yet to support.

You went into a great deal of assertion, not a lot of evidence.
There is no denying that the things I describe are true. The only dispute is the degree to which it has an effect. According to this source (http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=16816&tabla=miami) in 2005 over $20,000,000,000 was wired to Mexico. As best as I can that's a bit more than Mexico gets from tourism. This is money pumped out of local economies and into foreign economies. How can that be a good thing?

defaultdotxbe

22nd June 2010, 08:36 PM

If that were true, then why support a law that calls for increased enforcement of a policy that you already recognise is bad?
i didnt say the policy was bad, i just said i would support a particular change in that policy

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 08:37 PM

Humans commit crimes. Substances don't.
Humans can walk, talk and think. Substances don't.
Are you claiming that Prohibition was passed in order to change the behaviour of alcohol?

There is no denying that the things I describe are true.
Sure there is. Without evidence, it's all just assertion.

According to this source (http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=16816&tabla=miami) in 2005 over $20,000,000,000 was wired to Mexico.
Now it is up to you to show that that in itself has a detrimental effect on "local economies".

As best as I can that's a bit more than Mexico gets from tourism. This is money pumped out of local economies and into foreign economies. How can that be a good thing?
"Wouldn't dollars flowing south help Mexico and other American countries to prosper, raising their standard of living, giving them money to spend on US products, and thereby lowering the incentive to for their people come here in the first place? Isn't that a free market in action?"

Like it or not, this is becoming a global economy. Jingoism and economic isolationism isn't a viable option anymore.

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 08:41 PM

i didnt say the policy was bad, i just said i would support a particular change in that policy

Why change a policy that doesn't have problems? If the policy does have problems, where is the benefit of a law that calls for increased enforcement of it?

defaultdotxbe

22nd June 2010, 08:53 PM

I don't want to argue any such thing. (At least not right now.) It just seems that people are jumping to correct "problems" that don't necessarily need correction. Yes, illegals overconsume healthcare, and, possibly, K-12 education. But, a great many of them pay taxes, including Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, that they will never receive benefits from. If, indeed, they provide a net economic benefit, then it seems pretty stupid to decide to get tough on them in the middle of a massive recession.
im not sure i understand how this is possible, if they are paying into social security that would mean they have a social security number, which would only be issued to them if they had at the least a work visa, which would mean they arent illegal

only other option i can think of would be an expired visa, but this would still mean they came here legally and just didnt leave

third option would be using someone elses SSN, which is tantamount to identity theft

It is good for poor Mexicans. It seems logical that it would be good in that way for "Mexico". Do you have any reason that that is a bad thing?
mass emigration of workers is never a good thing for a country, unless of course they are sending vast quantities of money back home

Why change a policy that doesn't have problems? If the policy does have problems, where is the benefit of a law that calls for increased enforcement of it?
is any policy perfect? why enforce any laws if they arent perfect?

Thunder

22nd June 2010, 08:57 PM

ooh goody

Piscivore

22nd June 2010, 09:33 PM

mass emigration of workers is never a good thing for a country, unless of course they are sending vast quantities of money back home
That explains why Mexico might want to keep them home, not why we wouldn't want them here. Unless you can explain why improvments to Mexico's economy is not good for us. Either they are helping Mexico's economy, which reduces the disparity between us and thereby decreases the incentive to emigrate to the US, or they add to the GNP of the US. Possibly both. Either way, it looks like a win for us.

is any policy perfect? why enforce any laws if they arent perfect?
We're not talking about "any policy" or "perfect" policies. We are talking about this policy, which you said you'd like to see changed, yet also say you support a law that calls for increased enforcment of the very same policy as it exist now. How does that work?

Uncayimmy

22nd June 2010, 09:50 PM

Are you claiming that Prohibition was passed in order to change the behaviour of alcohol?
Where are you going with this? You've made one vague statement to say that prohibition is like immigration law, and it seems like you don't even understand what prohibition was. It prohibited the sale, transportation for sale, and creation for sale of alcohol. People could still drink it. People could still make it. Businesses could still sell the makings - grape growers in California dramatically increased production and sold blocks of grapes warning people not to put it in water and leave it stand for a few weeks because then it would turn into wine.

Immigration law is designed to prevent people from entering this country without following the proper procedures. The government could destroy illegal alcohol, but it can't destroy illegal aliens. Alcohol could be hidden in warehouses, sheds, and car trunks. If violators saw the police coming, they could destroy the evidence. Illegals have to live and work. They can't kill themselves to avoid prosecution.

I really have no desire to go down this road any further. I believe your analogy fails, but even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter to me. Why? Because the level of enforcement is nowhere near the level I think it should be. When states begin assisting in enforcing the law, like with ICE agents at the local level, and when the Border Patrol has a larger staff and better tools (like better fencing), then we can argue about whether the policy is a failure or not.

Sure there is. Without evidence, it's all just assertion.
You can say that all you want, but you're still wrong. I have provided evidence of money moving out of the country. The property crime rates I cited are factual. The uninsured rates for illegals are factual. The education programs for illegals are factual. And I have personally witnessed illegals living in the ways I describe.

Please save your hand waving for somebody else.

Now it is up to you to show that that in itself has a detrimental effect on "local economies".
It's basic economics. There's a reason that tourism is so valuable - it brings money into the local economy. Every dollar wired out of the area is a dollar not spent locally.

"Wouldn't dollars flowing south help Mexico and other American countries to prosper, raising their standard of living, giving them money to spend on US products, and thereby lowering the incentive to for their people come here in the first place? Isn't that a free market in action?"

LOL. Nope. You're welcome to show some evidence.

Like it or not, this is becoming a global economy. Jingoism and economic isolationism isn't a viable option anymore.
A global economy does not mean that local economies cease to exist. What global economy means is that what happens in one country affects other countries just like what happens in one state/city has always affected other states/cities.

If you want to argue about whether immigration policy is sound or not, start another thread. This thread is about enforcing the current immigration laws. If you think the USA would be better off with new laws, explain why and argue for the laws to be changed. Personally, I think you, like a lot of other people, only bring up this argument because for emotional reasons you don't like the thought of those poor illegals being sent back to Mexico.

Funny thing, I don't see anybody arguing that we should be sending airplanes to Europe and Africa to fly back their uneducated, unskilled but hardworking citizens. I mean, if it's such a good policy, then let's let the whole world benefit. Why treat Mexicans as special? Why not make quotas for each country?

defaultdotxbe

22nd June 2010, 09:56 PM

That explains why Mexico might want to keep them home, not why we wouldn't want them here. Unless you can explain why improvments to Mexico's economy is not good for us. Either they are helping Mexico's economy, which reduces the disparity between us and thereby decreases the incentive to emigrate to the US, or they add to the GNP of the US. Possibly both. Either way, it looks like a win for us.
if mexico wants to keep them home why do they oppose a law that would send more of them home?

and i didnt say a healthier mexican economy wouldnt benefit everyone, but the benefit comes at the expense of the US economy, which comes back to what i said before, why not just send them all checks in the mail?

We're not talking about "any policy" or "perfect" policies. We are talking about this policy, which you said you'd like to see changed, yet also say you support a law that calls for increased enforcment of the very same policy as it exist now. How does that work?
an increase of enforcement of the law as it stands today would still enforce the law as it stands tomorrow if it were changed, the 2 concepts are entirely separate

last year 2 laws were passed in illinois regarding window tints in cars, the first provided a route to fine and otherwise penalize people who installed illegal tints, effectively increasing the enforcement of tint laws

the second, sponsored by the same senator, loosened tint laws to allow darker tints on front windows, a lot of people struggled to grasp the seemingly contradictory nature of the 2 laws, when there is functionally no contradiction, a fact shown when they both went into force

so if you are going to say a law should not be enforced because it isnt perfect why cant that logic that apply to all laws?

Cactus Wren

22nd June 2010, 10:05 PM

dtugg

22nd June 2010, 10:15 PM

Guess not.

According to a Washington Post poll,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_060810.html?sid=ST2010061700014

58% of Americans support (42% strongly support) the Arizona law. Only 41% oppose the law. And given that this is a WP poll, the real percentages are probably even more supportive of the Arizona law than that. So once again, we find the Obama administration acting contrary to the views of Americans. See what I mean about Stuck On Stupid?

Posted on the first page of this thread.

Also. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=washington+post+58%25+arizona)

Uncayimmy

22nd June 2010, 11:30 PM

and i didnt say a healthier mexican economy wouldnt benefit everyone, but the benefit comes at the expense of the US economy, which comes back to what i said before, why not just send them all checks in the mail?
I know you're being somewhat flip, but I think some people believe that would be a good idea. As I cited earlier, some $20B is wired into Mexico every year, which is more than they get in tourism. This is a disincentive for the Mexican government to improve things. Tourism requires infrastructure - water, police, roads, and so forth. You have to invest locally increase tourism dollars.

The wired money is a horrible disincentive to the Mexican government. First, it requires no infrastructure, which means no local investment. The money gets put into the hands of their poorest citizens, which means the government doesn't have to help the poor. The millions of people in the USA sending that money back don't have to be supported by the Mexican government. It also lowers their unemployment rate (it's actually much lower than in the USA). And the Mexican government has no incentive to police their side of the border.

The people who think illegal immigration is good for Mexico as a whole are just nuts. It's like giving food and shelter to a drug addict so he can continue his lifestyle at your expense. If that $20B dried up, maybe they would do something about the corruption problems and drug cartels to increase tourism. If the millions of illegals relied on their own government, maybe they would get their **** together and so something about it.

At this point, why should the Mexican government do anything to encourage these millions of people to return?

BTW, it's amusing that the discussion centers on Mexicans. There are literally millions of illegals from Asia and Europe. This is a problem as well. However, many of them, especially from Europe, are visa overstayers. Generally speaking they are more educated and better off financially, so if someone wants to argue about illegals being good for the economy, I would think of those people first.

an increase of enforcement of the law as it stands today would still enforce the law as it stands tomorrow if it were changed, the 2 concepts are entirely separate
Yep. Change the laws if they need to be changed. Otherwise, enforce them. We have a separation of powers for a reason. The executive branch should not be permitted to in effect repeal laws by refusing to enforce them. One cool part of the Arizona law is that it seems to codify that citizens can sue the government for not enforcing it. What a shame that needs to be done.

Uncayimmy

22nd June 2010, 11:55 PM

I would also like to comment on the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about it Much of this debate, IMHO, boils down to the fact that some of us, like myself, are considered "selfish" for saying in effect, "I don't want to share the wealth of this country with the poor of other countries illegally coming here for a better life."

There's a practical limit to the number of uneducated, unskilled people with no assets that this country can absorb. We have plenty of our own. If we needed more, we could cut even more funding from education and public assistance programs. The fact is that it dilutes the wealth of the country.

I'm in favor of limited, selective immigration. If people want to come here, then they can demonstrate that they will be contributing citizens by learning to read and write the language so they are potentially employable in many fields. Complete your education at home to demonstrate that investing in your education here is worthwhile. Bring skills that are useful. Anybody can push a broom or dig a ditch. Show me you can plumb, run wires, or write software.

The stronger this economy is, the more it can help other countries in practical ways. When this economy is strong, we can invest in the infrastructure of other countries. We can provide a market for your country to manufacture goods that we import. Don't come here, wire money out of the country, and pretend like you're doing me a favor by claiming that now your family can buy more goods imported from the USA. You could have just bought them here in the first place!

And when it comes to Mexico specifically, sorry, but you're just not in my Top Ten List of Countries in Dire Need of Help. Mexico has a per capita GDP of $14,000, which is well above the world average. There are countries in Asia, Africa, and in the former USSR where people have much greater needs than the people of Mexico. Yeh, I get that they want a better a life, but it's not like they are some poor, third world country with people dying from epidemics.

The biggest epidemic Mexico has right now is obesity. No kidding. They have one of the highest rates of soda consumption in the world. Their infant mortality rate is better than over 100 other countries. Over 150 countries have a lower life expectancy. About 150 countries have higher rates of AIDS. They spend a higher percentage of their GDP on education than the USA.

So, really, pardon me for not shedding tears over the plight of the poor Mexicans coming to the USA for a "better" life. If the USA is going to play Mommy and Daddy to the world, then Mexico is their freshman kid in college complaining that he can't get a good education at the local university because he has a four year old Dell laptop and tiny dorm room. After all, the other kids are in private colleges and have iPads in their nice, off-campus condos, right? Well, Mommy and Daddy should be more worried about their 10 year old, mentally troubled kid with no shoes, no paper, and no pencils wandering lost in the ghetto.

Mexico is standing on their own two feet. They have a trillion dollar economy, natural resources, and industry. It's time for them to stand up straight, buckle down, and get their **** together. Then they can start accepting immigrants from countries who speak the same or similar languages who have similar cultures.

WildCat

23rd June 2010, 04:59 AM

Do you have evidence that this actually occurs? Do you you have evidence the lower wages are "artificial"?
Yes. After that meatpacking plant in Iowa got busted for hiring illegal immigrants (and it also turned out they defrauded investors, but that's not relevant to this topic) they were forced to hire legal workers, resulting in them having to pay $2/hour in higher wages.

The only reason people hire illegal immigrants is because they can pay them less than market wage. There isn't a labor shortage in the US, indeed we pay tens of millions of people to sit at home unemployed.

It's a myth there are "jobs Americans won't do", there are only wages Americans won't work for.

Who said I was a "liberal"? Because I don't agree with you? Or are you saying you are, since you seem to be in favour of protectionist laws to keep wages elevated above market?
That's an odd definition of "protectionism", where did you get it? :rolleyes:

WildCat

23rd June 2010, 05:04 AM

if mexico wants to keep them home why do they oppose a law that would send more of them home?
Mexico actively encourages its citizens to emigrate to the US illegally. They like to export their poorest citizens.

WildCat

23rd June 2010, 05:07 AM

ZirconBlue

23rd June 2010, 06:50 AM

Actually, ZB's "claims" are an expression of doubt about UY's elaborate claims.

Yes. And dtugg's "fact" that these nebulous problems exist in the first place.

That some illegals get on the grid so to speak does not a net economic benefit make.

Despite Rhetoric, Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/illegal-immigration-provides-benefits-states-despite-rhetoric/)

According to the Comptrollers’ office, state and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide services like education, health care and safety, but raised an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. Based on the data, the Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal immigrant population in 2006.

Fiscally, illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and local coffers primarily through sales and property taxes, which are mostly unavoidable. A majority of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local income tax as well - 50% to 75%, according the Congressional Budget office.

Uh, thousands of dead Americans?

What dead Americans are those?

im not sure i understand how this is possible, if they are paying into social security that would mean they have a social security number, which would only be issued to them if they had at the least a work visa, which would mean they arent illegal

They get fake IDs (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803EEDD1F3FF936A35757C0A9639C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all):

It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes. But according to specialists, most of them do. Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most such workers have been forced to buy fake ID's to get a job.

<snip>

Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect -- sometimes simply fictitious -- Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the ''earnings suspense file'' in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

<snip>

''Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes,'' said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.

Yes. After that meatpacking plant in Iowa got busted for hiring illegal immigrants (and it also turned out they defrauded investors, but that's not relevant to this topic) they were forced to hire legal workers, resulting in them having to pay $2/hour in higher wages.

Yeah. I'm sure those workers in Postville, Iowa are real happy about that. (http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_fb37d2d7-3916-54f9-a16f-daa0b0e4be06.html)

Frank Newgent

23rd June 2010, 06:51 AM

Mexico actively encourages its citizens to emigrate to the US illegally. They like to export their poorest citizens.

The Mexican corn-growing industry was undermined by NAFTA and attendant liberalized Mexican trade policies regarding cheap imported US and Canadian corn.

Back forty milpas couldn't compete. So what you say is partially true.

I must have known or talked to at least couple dozen people who'd come north or had kids who'd come north back in the 90's when I lived there.

You have to be smart and enterprising to be able to undergo such a move.

defaultdotxbe

23rd June 2010, 06:56 AM

They get fake IDs (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803EEDD1F3FF936A35757C0A9639C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all):
ah, 2 wrongs make a right. gotcha

ZirconBlue

23rd June 2010, 07:01 AM

ah, 2 wrongs make a right. gotcha

Nice strawman. Can you point to anywhere in this thread where I've talked about what's "right" or "wrong"? You asked a question and I answered it. You're welcome.

defaultdotxbe

23rd June 2010, 07:05 AM

Nice strawman. Can you point to anywhere in this thread where I've talked about what's "right" or "wrong"? You asked a question and I answered it. You're welcome.

Yes, illegals overconsume healthcare, and, possibly, K-12 education. But, a great many of them pay taxes, including Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, that they will never receive benefits from.

so overconsuming healthcare and public education isnt wrong? and if it isnt why the "but" there?

WildCat

23rd June 2010, 07:51 AM

Despite Rhetoric, Illegal Immigration Provides Benefits to States (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/illegal-immigration-provides-benefits-states-despite-rhetoric/)
That doesn't take into account the effects of lower wages, and legal workers sitting home collecting government assistance because illegal immigrants have lowered the wage scale for unskilled labor. Nor does it take into account the higher taxes better paid workers would generate.

Yeah. I'm sure those workers in Postville, Iowa are real happy about that. (http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_fb37d2d7-3916-54f9-a16f-daa0b0e4be06.html)
And what's happened since then?

The plant is reopened, and employing workers who make more than the illegal workers got paid.

The plant is scaled back, but that's mostly because of the multi-million dollar criminal fraud convictions against several managers, one of whom received a 27 year prison sentence. That part is unrelated to the hiring of illegal immigrants.

And I couldn't help but notice this part of your story:

A major obstacle in renting or selling properties, the landlords said, is the sometimes severe damage former plant workers left behind when they left town as quickly as they arrived last summer as Agriprocessors struggled to find employees after the raid.

Seibert estimates he spends an average of $3,000 repairing the homes. Some are destroyed beyond his financial ability to repair, so they waste away unoccupied.
I mean, who doesn't destroy a rental property before you vacate it?

WildCat

23rd June 2010, 07:53 AM

The Mexican corn-growing industry was undermined by NAFTA and attendant liberalized Mexican trade policies regarding cheap imported US and Canadian corn.

Back forty milpas couldn't compete. So what you say is partially true.

I must have known or talked to at least couple dozen people who'd come north or had kids who'd come north back in the 90's when I lived there.

You have to be smart and enterprising to be able to undergo such a move.
Agricultural subsidies are a seperate issue, and I have posted here repeatedly against ag subsidies here so don't say I'm hypocritical.

But even if there were no ag subsidies Mexico would still greatly underperform due to the rampant corruption there.

ZirconBlue

23rd June 2010, 08:43 AM

so overconsuming healthcare and public education isnt wrong? and if it isnt why the "but" there?

I don't care if it's "wrong". I'm trying to get someone, anyone, to actually demonstrate the "problems" that are supposedly being solved by this legislation. The problems need to be identified, and quantified, before any proposed "solution" can be evaluated (let alone passed into law). If (and I know that it's a big "if") it turns out that illegal immigrants actually contribute more than they consume, then this legislation may actually cause more harm than good.

Wildcat has brought up depressed wages. I don't find this an extraordinary claim, in that it fits with conventional economic theory. But, I'd still like to see some data to verify that reality conforms to theory, and, more importantly, to quantify the extent of the effect. It may be small enough to have little overall impact in the market. It may be large, but offset by the benefits of having cheaper goods and services. Either way, those card should be on the table before laws are passed to deal with them.

ZirconBlue

23rd June 2010, 08:51 AM

That doesn't take into account the effects of lower wages, and legal workers sitting home collecting government assistance because illegal immigrants have lowered the wage scale for unskilled labor. Nor does it take into account the higher taxes better paid workers would generate.

It doesn't take into account Global Warming due to all the hot air generated by politicians either. If you've got some better data, I'd love to see it.

And what's happened since then?

I don't know. That's the newest information I was able to find on the economy of Postville, Iowa. All my searches got swamped by news from back when the raids occured, or the recent conviction news. I suspect that earning $2/hour more doesn't really make up for losing a lot of residents and businesses in their community, but I'd be happy to discover otherwise.

I mean, who doesn't destroy a rental property before you vacate it?

I never did, but I was always trying to get my deposit back. . .

Uncayimmy

23rd June 2010, 01:03 PM

WildCat

23rd June 2010, 01:49 PM

It doesn't take into account Global Warming due to all the hot air generated by politicians either.
Is that a relevant metric?

If you've got some better data, I'd love to see it.
Don't you think that data on the issues I mentioned would offer a more complete picture?

I don't know. That's the newest information I was able to find on the economy of Postville, Iowa.
No kidding! Now that it's resolved the illegal immigration activists don't write stories about it anymore.

All my searches got swamped by news from back when the raids occured, or the recent conviction news. I suspect that earning $2/hour more doesn't really make up for losing a lot of residents and businesses in their community, but I'd be happy to discover otherwise.
Where do you think the new workers live? Do they commute in from some far-away land every morning?

Frank Newgent

23rd June 2010, 05:45 PM

It also doesn't take into account the billions of dollars wired out of local economies into Mexico. It doesn't take into account the high percentage (already cited) of illegals without health and auto insurance.

Like you said, want to create 5 million jobs? Get rid of a bunch of illegals. Last I saw the unemployment rate in Mexico is lower than in the USA.

You really believe that?

defaultdotxbe

23rd June 2010, 05:52 PM

I don't care if it's "wrong". I'm trying to get someone, anyone, to actually demonstrate the "problems" that are supposedly being solved by this legislation. The problems need to be identified, and quantified, before any proposed "solution" can be evaluated (let alone passed into law). If (and I know that it's a big "if") it turns out that illegal immigrants actually contribute more than they consume, then this legislation may actually cause more harm than good.
immigration laws are not being enforced, the arizona legislation essentially forces ICE to enforce the laws they have a duty to enforce

as i said previously, if laws going unenforced are not a problem, why enforce any law?

ZirconBlue

23rd June 2010, 07:35 PM

Don't you think that data on the issues I mentioned would offer a more complete picture?

Sure. Do you have that data?

Where do you think the new workers live? Do they commute in from some far-away land every morning?

I don't know. Absent any other information, I assume they're among the people who already lived there, who are now unemployed, due to having their local economy trashed.

immigration laws are not being enforced

Evidence? Murder happens on a regular basis in the US. Do you assume that laws against murder are not being enforced?

Uncayimmy

23rd June 2010, 07:58 PM

You really believe that?

Why would I not believe the CIA Factbook and numerous other sources?

Uncayimmy

23rd June 2010, 08:04 PM

Evidence? Murder happens on a regular basis in the US. Do you assume that laws against murder are not being enforced?

What does it really matter anyway? If the feds were enforcing immigration laws it a very high level, Arizona would still be entitled to pass their statute. They don't have to justify it to anyone. The feds and the rest of the country could then thank Arizona for saving them money by using state resources to assist the federal government.

So, seriously, what does it matter if we disagree on the level to which immigration laws are being enforced? I say that 10M to 20M illegals in the country indicates a lack of adequate enforcement. You obviously think that's an acceptable level. What does it matter?

Frank Newgent

23rd June 2010, 08:41 PM

Why would I not believe the CIA Factbook and numerous other sources?

Mexico has a lower unemployment rate than the US?

Are you sure you're not getting that from the Onion?

quixotecoyote

23rd June 2010, 08:45 PM

Mexico has a lower unemployment rate than the US?

Are you sure you're not getting that from the Onion?

Behold as the shocking truth is unveiled (http://tinyurl.com/3akezjx)!

Frank Newgent

23rd June 2010, 09:08 PM

Uh huh. Checking the 5-day forecast for Bangkok, Thailand, highs of 33-35 degrees are expected with overnight lows around 25 degrees.

The 5-day forecast for Nome, Alaska, calls for daytime highs of around 60 degrees and dropping to the low to mid-forties each evening.

Who would've guessed!!

defaultdotxbe

23rd June 2010, 09:39 PM

Evidence? Murder happens on a regular basis in the US. Do you assume that laws against murder are not being enforced?
would you be opposed to a law that allowed local and state police to assist federal authorities to track and capture suspected murderers wanted by the FBI?

Uncayimmy

23rd June 2010, 10:07 PM

would you be opposed to a law that allowed local and state police to assist federal authorities to track and capture suspected murderers wanted by the FBI?

To be clear, states are already allowed to do this. I forget the phrase, but there is nothing I'm aware of the prohibits local police from assisting in the enforcement of crimes. To complete the analogy the law would mandate this level of cooperation. For example, the state could require that in every stop, detainment or arrest that the suspects are run through the FBI's wanted list.

ZirconBlue

24th June 2010, 07:51 PM

would you be opposed to a law that allowed local and state police to assist federal authorities to track and capture suspected murderers wanted by the FBI?

I'm opposed to any legislation being passed without first clearly defining the problem needed to be solved, and verifying that the legislation will actually address that problem in any significant way. This requires that the problem somehow be quantified, so that the effects of the legislation can be measured.

Uncayimmy

24th June 2010, 09:55 PM

I'm opposed to any legislation being passed without first clearly defining the problem needed to be solved, and verifying that the legislation will actually address that problem in any significant way. This requires that the problem somehow be quantified, so that the effects of the legislation can be measured.

Sounds reasonable enough.

Justification
The State of Arizona recognizes that the Federal Government makes immigration law. Regardless of how senators and representatives from Arizona may have voted, Arizona respects the immigration laws that were passed and stipulates to the value of these laws. These laws affect not only Arizona but the other Sovereign States. Arizona stipulates to the value and benefits these laws bring to all of the states as well as the nation.

As one of the Sovereign States, Arizona has the right to enforce federal laws unless expressly prohibited. This has been recognized by the courts for many years. Arizona believes not only is this a right, but it is an obligation to assist the Federal Government and the Sovereign States for the good of the nation.

Arizona recognizes the that there are millions of illegal aliens in this country, many of them residing in Arizona and in bordering states. Arizona recognizes the inherent difficulty the Federal Government has in enforcing immigration laws once illegal aliens have crossed the border and blended into society. Arizona, like other states, participated in the ICE program whereby local police assisted the Federal Government in enforcing immigration law. This system has been effective because local police engage people on a regular basis through traffic stops, domestic violence calls, property crime investigations, and drug law enforcement. Checking the immigration status during these routine engagements has resulted in numerous arrests that would have otherwise been missed.

Therefore, the State of Arizona has decided that all local law enforcement should assist the Federal Government in enforcing immigration law where practical. Because some jurisdictions may be reluctant for political and ideological reasons to enforce this law, we are adding provisions to allow citizens to sue jurisdictions that refuse to assist the Federal Government and the other Sovereign States in enforcing the laws that were debated, carefully crafted, and passed by the Senate and Congress, then endorsed by the sitting President.

Feel better now?

ZirconBlue

25th June 2010, 08:41 AM

Sounds reasonable enough.

Justification
The State of Arizona recognizes that the Federal Government makes immigration law. Regardless of how senators and representatives from Arizona may have voted, Arizona respects the immigration laws that were passed and stipulates to the value of these laws. These laws affect not only Arizona but the other Sovereign States. Arizona stipulates to the value and benefits these laws bring to all of the states as well as the nation.

As one of the Sovereign States, Arizona has the right to enforce federal laws unless expressly prohibited. This has been recognized by the courts for many years. Arizona believes not only is this a right, but it is an obligation to assist the Federal Government and the Sovereign States for the good of the nation.

Arizona recognizes the that there are millions of illegal aliens in this country, many of them residing in Arizona and in bordering states. Arizona recognizes the inherent difficulty the Federal Government has in enforcing immigration laws once illegal aliens have crossed the border and blended into society. Arizona, like other states, participated in the ICE program whereby local police assisted the Federal Government in enforcing immigration law. This system has been effective because local police engage people on a regular basis through traffic stops, domestic violence calls, property crime investigations, and drug law enforcement. Checking the immigration status during these routine engagements has resulted in numerous arrests that would have otherwise been missed.

Therefore, the State of Arizona has decided that all local law enforcement should assist the Federal Government in enforcing immigration law where practical. Because some jurisdictions may be reluctant for political and ideological reasons to enforce this law, we are adding provisions to allow citizens to sue jurisdictions that refuse to assist the Federal Government and the other Sovereign States in enforcing the laws that were debated, carefully crafted, and passed by the Senate and Congress, then endorsed by the sitting President.

Feel better now?

Not really, since the only problem I see identified is "there are illegal immigrants here", which is kinda circular reasoning. "We need to get rid of the illegal immigrants, because otherwise we'll have illegal immigrants." What problems, specifically, are these immigrants causing? What are the magnitudes of these problems? How -- and how much -- will this legislation help? What are the costs of this legislation? Do the benefits outweigh those costs?

rwguinn

25th June 2010, 09:08 AM

Not really, since the only problem I see identified is "there are illegal immigrants here", which is kinda circular reasoning. "We need to get rid of the illegal immigrants, because otherwise we'll have illegal immigrants." What problems, specifically, are these immigrants causing? What are the magnitudes of these problems? How -- and how much -- will this legislation help? What are the costs of this legislation? Do the benefits outweigh those costs?

Wow. Just...Wow.
They, by existing, violate FEDERAL LAW! That is the problem
As one of the Sovereign States, Arizona has the right to enforce federal laws unless expressly prohibited. This has been recognized by the courts for many years. Arizona believes not only is this a right, but it is an obligation to assist the Federal Government and the Sovereign States for the good of the nation. Then the Feds need to retract the laws. We ncertai8nly don't need laws that are going to be enforced, do we? It might:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::roll eyes::rolleyes: inconvenience somebody...

Newtons Bit

25th June 2010, 09:18 AM

Wow. Just...Wow.
They, by existing, violate FEDERAL LAW! That is the problem

Well, running a red-light when it's 3am and the light won't change doesn't hurt anyone. It's against the law, but nothing bad happens.

Many illegals work for under minimum wage, don't pay taxes, their employers don't pay payroll taxes, etc. All of this adds to corruption. Which is bad.

The ones who do pay taxes are usually doing so because they're playing by the rules in that they got the job using a stolen identity. About 7 million illegal aliens in the country use stolen identities. This has serious repercussions to the people who's identity was stolen. But on the bright side, the liberals get to claim that all of those people are paying taxes. Yea, of course they are, because their employer withholds them.

These have real costs. And they can be easily fixed. But we don't want to. And as a by-product of doing nothing, we have created horrendous problems from drug trafficking.

JoeTheJuggler

25th June 2010, 09:39 AM

JoeTheJuggler

25th June 2010, 09:48 AM

Many illegals work for under minimum wage, don't pay taxes, their employers don't pay payroll taxes, etc. All of this adds to corruption. Which is bad.

Just a quibble here: nobody who lives and works in the U.S. can possible not pay any taxes. Maybe they get around income taxes (as do many people who are here legally including U.S. citizens), but they surely pay sales tax, tax on gasoline, tax on utilities, etc.

People who work for minimum wage pay little if any income tax even if they do everything legally. Full-time students often pay no income taxes (legally). And of course there are people here legally who don't pay tax on all or part of their income.

So "they don't pay taxes" is false and misleading. It's false in that they do pay taxes, and the ones they don't pay doesn't distinguish illegals from people here legally.

But I agree getting around minimum wage and other worker safety, environmental, and other laws is a bad thing. Comprehensive immigration reform should address these issues. It should recognize that our economy apparently requires many of the workers who are here illegally, and set up a viable guest worker program.

And I agree with you that casually breaking laws adds to corruption in general. I say the same thing about non-enforcement of noise ordinances in urban areas, for example. (I have to think it's not very good emotionally for the illegals either. I've only personally known one illegal alien, and he was very stressed--always having to look over his shoulder and worried about being caught.)

ETA: I don't think anyone is very happy with the status quo. I think if both sides (or all sides--there are surely more than 2) recognize this, we'd be able to communicate better and work on good comprehensive immigration reform.

rwguinn

25th June 2010, 09:57 AM

....

And I agree with you that casually breaking laws adds to corruption in general. I say the same thing about non-enforcement of noise ordinances in urban areas, for example. (I have to think it's not very good emotionally for the illegals either. I've only personally known one illegal alien, and he was very stressed--always having to look over his shoulder and worried about being caught.)

ETA: I don't think anyone is very happy with the status quo. I think if both sides (or all sides--there are surely more than 2) recognize this, we'd be able to communicate better and work on good comprehensive immigration reform.
Not going to happen as long as anyone who thinks laws ought to be enforced is defined as a "Racist"

WildCat

25th June 2010, 04:23 PM

Not really. I think those of us who favor a more liberal immigration policy recognize that immigration doesn't hurt those of us already here. In fact, from everything I read it adds to our wealth rather than diluting it.
We're not talking about immigration, we're talking about illegal immigration.

Legal immigrants, for instance, tend to have education and jobs skills. It's part of the selection criteria.

Quite the opposite with illegal immigrants. They drive wages and benefits down, and increases the number of people on government assistance.

wastepanel

25th June 2010, 09:52 PM

Well, running a red-light when it's 3am and the light won't change doesn't hurt anyone. It's against the law, but nothing bad happens.

And if I ran that red light 20 minutes after a bender, still drinking a beer, with a bag of weed in my pocket...it's only a red light. I've already driven 20 minutes like this. I live right around the corner. What's the worst that can happen?

How does the officer know I have insurance until I show him (a requirement in the state of Ohio is that you need to provide evidence of insurance when issued a traffic violation)?

What about that pesky warrant over my head for not filing income tax forms with my city?

The officer couldn't have known all that other stuff and is not privy to it, so let me go.

Kopji

26th June 2010, 09:30 PM

Nobody knows exactly how this law would be enforced. If I were to make a guess, it is that soon after the law was implemented it would be tested in court. We'd probably bring in someone like the mayor of Yuma to testify. :rolleyes:

(I have little expectation that this law will ever be implemented, it is all business harm and no benefit to Arizona).

The bill does one "state" thing. It effectively removes 'sanctuary' counties and cities - places that illegal immigrants have retreated to during raids in metro areas. Legal resident family and friends would now be harboring criminals. This is a change, and despite what the rest of America might think - the change will be resisted. Legal residents will not want their 'illegal' family and friends to have this new status of being criminal. Illegal does not currently mean criminal.

The burden of law enforcement is not equal between rural and metro Arizona. What is a relatively minor law enforcement change for metro areas is a major new law initiative for rural areas. Simply put - rural tax bases are smaller, but rural cities could now be sued for having lower quality of immigration enforcement than metro cities.

This is a major reason behind major rural cities suing the state. It is not so much that rural Arizona sees the bill as racist, but that this is a mandate without provision of funding - a mandated tax increase for rural Arizona, courtesy of the most populated areas.

This is also a simple argument for why immigration laws should be federal matters. left up to the states, the 'immigration answer' is for the majority (metro) to exercise a tyranny over the minority (rural).

And yes, I admit a lack of bias. I am cynical about politics, especially when the proclaimed 'tea party' guys are the ones behind this kind of law making.

I've read the law. IMHO it is not needed. It was a political message. We already send plenty of illegal immigrants 'back where they came from'.

The core dynamic is a disparity in income and quality of life. There are not simple answers to this. However, it is in the long term US best interests to be a good neighbor and have friendly neighbors on our borders. Canada check. Mexico... uh check, right? We tend to assume that Mexico will always be a friendly border neighbor, not a war-zone border that exists in some perennially hot areas whose names must not be spoken.

And since I tend to tear into Republicans for this...

I wish Obama would get off his butt and SUE US if that's what he wants to do. Telegraphing the intent out a month ahead of time is very un-lawyer like. Just put up or shut up. We hear about it from where, Ecuador TV? *********** politics.

The president is supposed to be above politics but when they do stuff like this is looks like big city politics made national.

ZirconBlue

28th June 2010, 06:14 AM

Wow. Just...Wow.
They, by existing, violate FEDERAL LAW! That is the problem
Then the Feds need to retract the laws. We ncertai8nly don't need laws that are going to be enforced, do we? It might:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::roll eyes::rolleyes: inconvenience somebody...

Sorry. I'm just not one of those people that thinks that just because something is against the law, that is inherently bad. Millions of people break the law by speeding every day. Yet, for some strange reason, we don't insist car manufacturers install technology that would prevent cars from exceeding the speed limit. Why is that?

Further, I'm not discussing whether the federal government should enforce laws. I'm discussing a particular new law that Arizona has passed. My belief is that no laws should be passed without first clearly identifying the problems -- by which I mean actual problems besides just "they're doing something against the law -- quantifying those problems and demonstrating how the new law will solve those problems.

The ones who do pay taxes are usually doing so because they're playing by the rules in that they got the job using a stolen identity. About 7 million illegal aliens in the country use stolen identities.

Evidence? The article I quoted above said talked about illegal immigrants using fake identities, but not stolen ones. Using your real name with a bogus SSN/greencard, rather than using someone else's name and SSN.

These have real costs.

Great! What are they? You do have data, right?

And as a by-product of doing nothing, we have created horrendous problems from drug trafficking.

That's more a problem of drug prohibition than of illegal immigration, IMO. But that's a topic currently being debated in another thread.

rwguinn

28th June 2010, 10:47 AM

Sorry. I'm just not one of those people that thinks that just because something is against the law, that is inherently bad. Millions of people break the law by speeding every day. Yet, for some strange reason, we don't insist car manufacturers install technology that would prevent cars from exceeding the speed limit. Why is that?
because the laws are enforced. When caught, you pay the piper. Fines, increased insurance rates, etc. Your attitude is "just let 'em be. No problem.We don't need that law, anyway"
You and your ilk are proposing that the laws NOT be enforced--or more like, "we have local speed limits, which we will enforce, but it's up to the Federal Government to enforce them on Interstate highways and US routes--we ain't gonna do it!"

Further, I'm not discussing whether the federal government should enforce laws. I'm discussing a particular new law that Arizona has passed. My belief is that no laws should be passed without first clearly identifying the problems -- by which I mean actual problems besides just "they're doing something against the law -- quantifying those problems and demonstrating how the new law will solve those problems
what new? The Az law requires that the locals follow Federal law and enforce it.

Evidence? The article I quoted above said talked about illegal immigrants using fake identities, but not stolen ones. Using your real name with a bogus SSN/greencard, rather than using someone else's name and SSN.
a fake ssn will get kicked back rather quickly IF the employer tries to deposit to that account. Big IF--and that's the problem.

Great! What are they? You do have data, right?

That's more a problem of drug prohibition than of illegal immigration, IMO. But that's a topic currently being debated in another thread.Correct, there.

Wolrab

28th June 2010, 02:03 PM

Illegal does not currently mean criminal.

It is a synonym.

JoeTheJuggler

28th June 2010, 03:16 PM

Then the Feds need to retract the laws. We ncertai8nly don't need laws that are going to be enforced, do we?

The claim that the feds do not enforce immigration laws is false. Period.

In fact, enforcement counted by deportations, removals, criminal arrests, federal prosecutions are at record levels.

I suppose I'll have to point this out every single time someone repeats the lie that the federal government is not enforcing its own immigration laws.

http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0810/081023washington.htm

JoeTheJuggler

28th June 2010, 03:19 PM

what new? The Az law requires that the locals follow Federal law and enforce it.

The Arizona law makes it a state misdemeanor to be in the state illegally.

It also contradicts federal law which says that local and state law enforcement can assist the federal government with immigration enforcement but only in cases where there is a prior felony and only AFTER it has gotten permission from federal authorities.

If there were nothing new in the law, what would the purpose be for making a new law that does nothing new?

Neally

28th June 2010, 05:43 PM

The claim that the feds do not enforce immigration laws is false. Period.
As it has been clearly stated, the purpose of passing the law was not that the Feds aren't enforcing it, but that they aren't controlling the illegals ENOUGH. If they did a better job at securing the border, there would be no need to have AZ police tackling the problem also.

dtugg

28th June 2010, 05:52 PM

The Arizona law makes it a state misdemeanor to be in the state illegally.

That part is probably unconstitutional.

It also contradicts federal law which says that local and state law enforcement can assist the federal government with immigration enforcement but only in cases where there is a prior felony and only AFTER it has gotten permission from federal authorities.

U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez. Does it need to be said yet again?

ZirconBlue

28th June 2010, 06:51 PM

because the laws are enforced. When caught, you pay the piper. Fines, increased insurance rates, etc. Your attitude is "just let 'em be. No problem.We don't need that law, anyway"

That does not accurately reflect my attitude in any way.

You and your ilk are proposing that the laws NOT be enforced

No. I'm not. I've never had my own ilk before, though. That's pretty cool.

--or more like, "we have local speed limits, which we will enforce, but it's up to the Federal Government to enforce them on Interstate highways and US routes--we ain't gonna do it!"

That doesn't even make any sense. That's pretty much the opposite of what we're talking about.

what new? The Az law requires that the locals follow Federal law and enforce it.

You might not have heard, but there was a new law passed in Arizona, where there had not previously been such a law. It was all over the news. I'm surprised you didn't hear about it.

a fake ssn will get kicked back rather quickly IF the employer tries to deposit to that account. Big IF--and that's the problem.

Did you even read my linked article above? Here, I'll quote it for you again:

It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes. But according to specialists, most of them do. Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most such workers have been forced to buy fake ID's to get a job.

<snip>

Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect -- sometimes simply fictitious -- Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the ''earnings suspense file'' in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

<snip>

''Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes,'' said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.

Billions of dollars, already "deposited" to accounts that they can't match to an "owner".

Correct, there.

Yay!