Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[Wolrab]

Illegal does not currently mean criminal.

It is a synonym.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Please read the post I quoted. He clearly meant that the federal government isn't enforcing their laws at all. He even said they should repeal those laws since they're unwilling to enforce them.

Again, as long as people keep making the false statement that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws, I will continue to point out that it's false.

Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether the federal government is doing "enough" (even though I've shown that enforcement is at record levels), and also as to whether or not the Arizona law will help or exacerbate things. But that's not the statement that keeps being made that I'm pointing out is false.

People are quick to back off the false statement and change their statement. But then what about the record levels of enforcement?

Also, saying that the Arizona law will help just begs the question.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That part is probably unconstitutional.

Yep. It also refutes the claim that the Arizona law isn't an immigration law (or that it doesn't change anything compared to federal immigration law).

U.S. v. Vasquez-Alvarez. Does it need to be said yet again?

Already answered. You ceded that the Arizona law is in conflict with federal law, and the reason Vasquez-Alvarez was decided that way was because the court found no conflict. Conflict preemption is still a strong legal principle.

Also, the cases I cited earlier were Supreme Court decisions rather than lower court cases.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

OK. So the oft-repeated claim that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration is false. Now we're dealing with a question of opinion (and not fact) as to whether what they're doing is enough.

How do you respond to the statistics I've cited that shows immigration enforcement is at record levels?

Also, even if the federal government isn't doing enough, it doesn't follow necessarily that the Arizona law is a good idea (or even constitutionally valid). If so, states could take over any federal authority using that argument. After all, no matter how much is done on any subject, more could always be done, and someone could always argue that it's not enough.

 

[Neally]

How do you respond to the statistics I've cited that shows immigration enforcement is at record levels?

Irrelevant if 10 get through for every 1 caught. AZ legislature decided what was being done was not enough regardless of enforcement levels. Other states may have different opinions.

Also, even if the federal government isn't doing enough, it doesn't follow necessarily that the Arizona law is a good idea (or even constitutionally valid). If so, states could take over any federal authority using that argument. After all, no matter how much is done on any subject, more could always be done, and someone could always argue that it's not enough.

AZ isn't "taking over" the federal authority, but assisting and using their own resources to provide additional enforcement. Just as states duplicate other federal level laws and constitutional statues. Why do you have a problem with a decision by a state to provide additional enforcement?

 

[dtugg]

Already answered. You ceded that the Arizona law is in conflict with federal law,

That's like the third or fourth time you have repeated that lie.

and the reason Vasquez-Alvarez was decided that way was because the court found no conflict.

Yes. I think I will trust a federal courts interpretation over yours.

Conflict preemption is still a strong legal principle.

If there is an actual conflict.

Also, the cases I cited earlier were Supreme Court decisions rather than lower court cases.

None of which had to do with whether or not states can enforce federal immigration laws. Which is why the 10th Circuit Court was able to rule the way they did. If the Supreme Court had previously ruled that states cannot enforce federal immigration laws, the 10th Circuit Court would have been bound by precedent.

 

[dtugg]

How do you respond to the statistics I've cited that shows immigration enforcement is at record levels?

They did a slightly less horrible job than before?

 

[applecorped]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immig...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmZWRzc3VldG9ibG8-


"PHOENIX – The federal government took a momentous step into the immigration debate Tuesday when it filed a lawsuit seeking to throw out Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants, saying the law blatantly violates the Constitution. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash over states rights at a time when politicians across the country have indicated they want to follow Arizona's lead on the toughest-in-the-nation immigration law.
The legal action represents a thorough denunciation by the government of Arizona's action, declaring that the law will "cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents" while altogether ignoring "humanitarian concerns" and harming diplomatic relations."










Ladies and gentlemen............................Let's get ready to RUMBLE!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's the complaint itself:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/usa_v_arizona.pdf

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Already answered. You ceded that the Arizona law is in conflict with federal law,

That's like the third or fourth time you have repeated that lie.

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.

So you agree it's in conflict but it's not? Or are you saying you actually agree there is a conflict, but you think the courts won't agree?


From reading the filing, the US's argument for preemption is more about the general immigration policy they're pursuing. They're saying that the Arizona law promotes a conflicting policy on how to deal with illegal immigration ("attrition") and would undermine the more comprehensive policy the US has been pursuing.

But it's the same overall argument. It's conflict preemption.

 

[BeAChooser]

What's interesting is that after all the rhetoric from Obama, Holder, the LA City Council, so-called civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, and liberals throughout the country that the Arizona law is racist, the filing doesn't make any such claim at all. Nor does the suit claim the law violates civil rights. Nor does it claim it will result in racial profiling. So were Obama, Holder and the rest just lying about those things? Were they just throwing out those terms for political purposes and because their base wants to hear them? You bet they were.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They did a slightly less horrible job than before?

You mean they're doing more than ever before in history?

Yet the Arizona law was sold as necessary because the U.S. government isn't doing anything.

But please, go right on believing that despite the evidence I have provided that enforcement of immigration laws is at an all time high.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yet the Arizona law was sold as necessary because the U.S. government isn't doing anything.

No, the Arizona law was sold as necessary because the US government isn't doing enough. Not by a long shot.

 

[Neally]

But please, go right on believing that despite the evidence I have provided that enforcement of immigration laws is at an all time high.

And please go on claiming that the reason for the law is that the federal government isn't doing anything when you've been told many times that the reason is that they aren't doing ENOUGH, not that they aren't doing anything.

 

[dtugg]

You mean they're doing more than ever before in history?

Yet the Arizona law was sold as necessary because the U.S. government isn't doing anything.

But please, go right on believing that despite the evidence I have provided that enforcement of immigration laws is at an all time high.

Record high don't mean much if the record is only few percent of people committing the crime. So what if they caught 3% as opposed to 2%? It still means that the federal government is totally inept at catching illegal immigrants or it doesn't want to catch most of them at all.