Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[Uncayimmy]

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 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]

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

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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--the very last part on page 16.

I believe you are incorrect. It's done here 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.

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 (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]

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

Link

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

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]

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]

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--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.

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, "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. 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]

But, really, if you want to argue about the ability of states to assist the federal government, take it up with this guy. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?