Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

Or they might be using the current climate to get elected into the offices they are interested in? I have serious doubts either of the two is acting in good faith, but then I am a dark and gloomy soul.

 

While this is a nice point, I would point out that law enforcement has its own agenda that has an ideological element. Generally, they despise laws that protect the rights of prisoners and never seem to give them enough power to do their jobs.

 

Chandos, remember that local government and federal government are two very different beasts. As I said in an earlier post, both parties have sections that oppose immigration reform, and that like having illegals around. This is, yet again, a failure of the whole federal government, Reps and Dems alike.

Dupnik is the Dem equivalent of the birther or the extremes of the Tea Party, and he's unfortunately not alone. Dems and liberals from the President to college kids have blasted Arizona over things that aren't actually in the bill, but facts won't change anything.

You're getting confused, Ragusa. Previously, the State had neither claimed nor given any authority on the topic. It was only federal law that said anything on the topic. The Feds then agreed to extend their authority to the Sheriff. Now, they're rescinding it (for no reason that anyone has said). Shortly after, the State is claiming independant authority to pass and enforce it's own laws on what to do with illegal immigrants (not, mind you, who is an illegal immigrant, just what to do with those who are). The State may never have exercized it's authority, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. Whether it is or not is for the courts to decide.

Yes, this is about politics. Of course it is, since it is politics. It's also about security, though. What I still fail to see any evidence that it's about, though, is racism.

Just as long as you're willing to admit they are nothing more than your own doubts. I suspect this is a mixture of the cold politics you suspect and the geniune concern they claim. Like you, though, this is just a suspicion.

 

So, while watching Larry King talk about this I'm having a Mexican beer ... I don't see adequate ID so I may need to arrest and take into custody the entire six-pack.

 

I'm glad you reminded me of that, because I sure as hell don't recall you saying that...This is what you said:

I'm missing something here because that does not sound like either one opposes immigration reform,; it sounds like you just don't like their policy regarding reform on the issue, which means that you are the one doing the opposing. Now, I can respect your opposition for the reasons you cite, but please try to remind yourself of what you are actually saying here. While you may not be for either idea of work permits or amnesty that does not mean that GWB, or the Dems, were "opposed" to reform as you are saying now.

 

Actually, in post #31, this is what I said:

I don't know what Bush actually wanted. I suspect all he wanted was a little peace, but I don't know.

And, to be clear, I don't consider amnesty a form of reform. It may address the problem of the illegals already here, but it does nothing about immigration reform, and it actually creates more incentive for illegals to come here. Once immigration reform has been reasonably accomplished, it may be a useful way of dealing with the illegals here, but until then it only serves to make the problem worse. The Dems who support amnesty as the solution don't actually support reform, in my eyes.

 

Post #31 was not directed at me, so you were not clear about which post you were referring to. Nevertheless, my response to post #31 is, so what? My point was that there are the same political talking heads complaining that "the federal government" hasn't done enough on immigration. Well, yes, funny they should be saying that now. You can hear them for yourself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#36814439

Regarding Bush: As governor of Texas he was fairly popular with the hispanic population here and he received a good share of their votes because he wanted reform. GWB and Rove courted the hispanic vote quite actively. And if you think immigration reform is an issue in AZ, it's even bigger in our state because we have a huge border along Mexico. We have loads of illegals here. Hell, some of them probably built my house. Most builders and contrators and thousands of businesses here use illegal labor all the time and everyone in Texas knows it.

Of course, and I believe that those who are opposed to amnesty are NOT for REAL reform either. I am certainly in favor of the guest worker program that Bush wanted.

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/guestworkerprogram.html

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Are you now complaining about Congress complaining about Congress doing nothing? If so, I'm all with you. Who are the 'political talking heads' you're talking about. Seriously, I'm not sure, there are too many of them.

I didn't know Bush was big with the hispanics back then. Thanks for that.

I'm not saying amnesty is evil or wrong, just that it's a moping-up solution, and we aren't to the moping up stage. You don't mop up water from a broken foset until you've turned off the water. Those proposing amnesty now aren't proposing anything like a solution. To be clear, I'm all for something like a guest-worker program or a psuedo-amnesty (I think permanent resident would be better than citizen), but not until the immigration problem is solved.


All in all, though, I think there are some vast misconceptions in the illegal immigration depate. Misconceptions that the Dems both profit from and propogate. First and foremost is that most people for tougher immigration laws aren't actually against immigration at all. They're against illegal immigration. Sure, give us you're poor, your tired, your huddled masses, but only in quantities we decide we can handle. The unchecked, unregistered, and uncontrolled flow of such masses over our borders is a no-no, and I think everyone can agree on that. Those of us against such things as amnesty now aren't racist, we aren't for a 'pure' America, nor are we suggesting that all immigrants should go home. We're against rewarding criminals for their crimes and encouraging more such crime. And make no mistake, illegal immigrants are criminals; they've broken the law.

I'd also like to point out that many of the same opponents of amnesty or the like also support laws to punish those who abuse illegal immigrants in sweat-shops and the like.

I don't know if anyone on these forums had fallen for those misconceptions or not, but I've seen tons of it since the Arizona law came about.

 

That's a curious argument to make against the case of legalizing immigrants who are already working. I don't know about education (which imo no few immigrants have, especially those coming from Eastern Europe or Asia), but working tends to involve being productive .

 

Exactly.

Yes.

If you watch the link, you will see them.

IF they commit crimes while they are here, yes they should be locked up, not just put on the other side of the border, just so that they can come back again in a week. However, if their crime is that they have crossed the border to find freedom and opportunity, then it is a crime to keep them out.

You can only speak for yourself in this regard. I know plenty of people here in Texas who want to keep them out because they want to keep America "white." THAT is the real crime, IMO.

 

The video wasn't loading for me. After 5 minutes, I gave up. I think it's just this computer being an asterisk.

Crossing the border illegally is a crime. This is something I fail to understand about the Dem talking heads (and many of the nit-wit people on the street, too): there is no right to come into the US. None at all. The US government has established a process by which we allow non-citizens to come into the US (which I support), but it's not a right. It's closer to a priveledge. Keeping out immigrants that don't follow that process isn't a crime. Actually, letting them in is the crime. This is probably true of every nation in the world, and just about every nation in the world recognizes that for other nations. Some forget that with the US for some reason, though.

That's true. Let me ammend that. Most people I've spoken to on the topic or heard from (including interviews on TV) on the topic aren't trying to keep America 'white'. And especially not the legal immigrants that oppose illegal immigration (at least, the non-white ones).

 

Just to make that point: In Dr. Strangelove, General Jack D. Ripper was genuinely concerned about the fluoridation of all elements. For a racist in the segregated south the enforcement of segregation laws probably also was a genuine concern. I argue that for a nativist nut the issue of immigration ranks very high on the list of his genuine concerns.

With that I don't mean Arizona doesn't have a genuine problem with immigration; I just question Arpaio's and Kobach's motives. From what I hear from them when they open their mouth (and in view of their careers so far) Arpaio and Kobach both are single issue politicos, and very probably immigration is a genuine concern of theirs. And yes, I infer something here.

Besides, NOG, you made a good point earlier: Indeed, the States may have just ceased exercising their authority over immigration matters since they became part of the Union, but that doesn't mean this authority has vanished, but that it was only overridden by the constitution and federal law. Doesn't that mean that in order to regain that authority, Arizona would have to secede? Claiming 'inherent authority' sure sounds like a half-measure then.

 

Wait ... did you just use an absurd comedy to make a point on a serious subject? Please tell me I'm just experiencing blurred vision.....

 

No, it's just that all that Mexican beer you arrested and took into custody is catching up with you.

 

You're making a large assumption here. Not necessarily an unreasonable one, or a wrong one, but at least a large one.

Here's the issue, Ragusa. The Constitution grants the federal government the authority:

Now, this new law doesn't establish a rule of naturalization, so it doesn't violate the second portion, and it doesn't regulate commerce or trade in any (direct) way, so it doesn't violate the first portion of that. All it does is establish local punishments for the federal offences. Numerous other states have laws that do this on immigration already. Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia all introduced bills in 2007 alone concerning the employment of illegal immigrants, something already goverened by Section 8 USC 1324. Every state in the union has it's own immigration laws, which means that they aren't automatically unconstitutional. Beyond that, I have yet to see anything in this law that violates the constitution.

 

What about Art. VI then?

i.e. the argument in court will likely be that the law is pre-empted by existing federal immigration law.

 

You fail to understand their PoV? It's not that it is a right. And most everyone knows that it is illegal to enter this country without following the process. It's just that the process does not work that well and everyone knows it. There are those of us who welcome immigrants because we still see America as a great "melting pot," and there will always be those who don't want to welcome immigrants for whatever their reason (s). Those people you refer to as "nit-wits" have more savvy than you give them credit for, since they understand that there is an element in this process that just wants to keep America "pure," and they understand the ignorance and the unfairness of it. Some people believe the process is what matters; for some there are larger principles at play in this issue, like what kind of America we will have by the middle of the century.

Democrats want and actively pursue a party and a platform that is inclusive; Republicans want inclusion also, but then on something like this, it blows up in their faces, since it makes them appear the opposite. How do think Hispanics generally see the AZ law? Do think they see it as a "good" thing for them? Take a second to see how this looks from their PoV.

But all this is worthless, because it is only beating around the issue of comprehensive reform. Until there is real reform the conversation can go nowhere.

 

Ragusa, the problem with that is that nothing in this law is contrary to federal law. Far from it, they agree with each other.

So protest for actual immigration reform: reforming the immigration process. I could get behind that, and I think a lot of Republicans and conservatives nation-wide could. Of course, that would end up portraying the Reps as people who actually want immigration and care about immigrants, so I understand the Dems attacking enforcement laws instead. It really worries me to see so many common folk go along with it, though.


One possible objection to the law has occurred to me, and it's one that I don't think has been mentioned. Could someone object to it based on the term 'reasonable suspicion' being too vague? I know a law can be rejected by the courts if it is so vague as to be unenforceable, but I'm not sure if this is that vague.

 

The lack of contradiction is there very point why it might be pre-empted. From Jack Balkin:

Emphasis mine.

 

Since when did the states need to 'justify' their laws? In Utah, it's illegal to hunt whales. That's in Utah. I think it's Texas where it's illegal to let a penguin sleep in your fridge. In some city somewhere there's a law allowing people to throw rotten onions on thursdays at anyone who is both a. on the courthouse steps and b. wearing a striped shirt. What justifications do those laws have? What justifications do they need?

This reasoning smacks of something distinctly (and here truely) un-American: suspension of the rule of law. I understand the reasoning behind enforcement strategies, but the current 'strategy' is simply "don't". To allow the Federal government to simply not enforce it's laws whenever it feels like it goes against some of the founding principles of our nation.