Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[Uncayimmy]

You really believe that?

Why would I not believe the CIA Factbook and numerous other sources?

 

[Uncayimmy]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Frank Newgent]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 inconvenience somebody...

 

[Newtons Bit]

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]

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.

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.

I know it's just an anecdote, but I like to point to the story of Dr. Q who entered the country illegally and is now a great asset to us. I think most people have a mental image of what an immigrant (legal or illegal) looks like, and that mental image is not very accurate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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]

....

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]

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]

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]

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.

(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]

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 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]

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.