DOJ won't sue sanctuary cities

[marplots]

OK, help me out.

Didn't you ask what the conflict with federal policy was and then state what the conflict was?

I thought you did a good job of it actually.

 

[Neally]

OK, help me out.

Didn't you ask what the conflict with federal policy was and then state what the conflict was?

I thought you did a good job of it actually.

No, I specifically asked JoeTheJuggler what HE thought the issue is, since he has avoided answering it.

 

[marplots]

Thank you. Is there a way I can delete that post?

 

[pipelineaudio]

I would gladly pay to support a system that takes illegals at the border and sends them to wherever these anti-law people live.

When you get a taste of our pain, I suspect your perspective will change quite a bit

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Once again you are presenting either/or choices that don't necessarily exist. How about redeploy funds/resources from elsewhere?

That's the definition of trade-off, isn't it?

Once again then, how do you think the AZ law conflicts with and undermines federal policy? You have been asked this several times now but you keep avoiding answering by saying that's what the lawsuit is about or that's what the government will try to prove.

I've answered several times. Also, it's not MY argument. It's what the federal government is arguing in this suit. And it's not a bad argument. In the arguments, the judge recognized that the Arizona state law has indeed had effects on international relations, though she also indicated that she didn't buy the idea that the law establishes a policy. (I think there's a difference between the intention and the actual consequence of the law.)

MY argument has been simply that the law is a direct conflict with federal law which clearly says that state police are authorized to make arrests only in cases where there is a prior felony and deportation and only after they've gotten confirmation from federal authorities.

Just the opposite. One of the big complaints that you have acknowledged is that the AZ will actually increase the cooperation by way of potentially channeling many more illegals to federal authorities. Something that they don't want to happen, probably more for political reasons than economic.

You do realize the federal government is suing Arizona over this law, don't you? What definition of "cooperation" are you using?

The Arizona law would increase the state's role in immigration enforcement--even beyond what the federal government wants. This is not cooperation. Nor does it recognize the fact that immigration is a field where the federal government is authorized to set a uniform national policy.

If Brewer's arguments haven't been that she disagrees with federal policy and seeks to undermine it (or establish a different policy), then all we're left with is the false idea that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws. If there is another argument, I haven't heard it.

(BTW, yet another example of that false claim came in yesterday's arguments when state attorney John Bouma said, "A law unenforced is no law at all." Note well: there is no logical way to construe this to be a claim that federal enforcement isn't sufficient. The argument doesn't work unless it's absolute. "A law enforced at record levels but still not enforced to my opinion of 'enough' is no law at all," doesn't work.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I specifically asked JoeTheJuggler what HE thought the issue is, since he has avoided answering it.

Bull.

I've not avoided anything. I've made my position on the Arizona immigration law very clear in several threads here.

I've been trying to stay close to the topic of this particular thread --which was pointing to an apparent inconsistency in the federal government's decision to sue Arizona over its law, but not to sue over these various sanctuary city laws.

If you want to turn this into yet another thread on the general debate of the Arizona immigration law, that's fine with me.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When you get a taste of our pain, I suspect your perspective will change quite a bit

What pain is that?

Are you claiming that Arizonans are unanimous in support of this law?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If Brewer's arguments haven't been that she disagrees with federal policy and seeks to undermine it (or establish a different policy), then all we're left with is the false idea that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws. If there is another argument, I haven't heard it.

I take that back. I have heard another argument. It is the claim that the Arizona law is exactly the same as federal law. This of course is completely false.

In fact, the federal law that concerns authorization of states to enforce laws regarding illegal immigrants is USC Title 8, Chapter 12 section 1252c.

Here's the main part of it (you can follow the link to read the entire thing which isn't much longer):

§ 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.

The Arizona law authorizes (maybe even requires) state and local police to detain someone suspected of being illegal even if there is no prior felony and even before getting confirmation from federal authorities.

 

[Neally]

That's the definition of trade-off, isn't it?

Yes, but the point was that you claimed the trade-of was either raise taxes or deficit spend, and those are not in fact the only choices.

MY argument has been simply that the law is a direct conflict with federal law which clearly says that state police are authorized to make arrests only in cases where there is a prior felony and deportation and only after they've gotten confirmation from federal authorities.

What federal law states that state law enforcement can't detain and turn over illegals? The federal statue you quote says what they can do. The AZ law does not violate any federal statue that restricts what they can't do.

You do realize the federal government is suing Arizona over this law, don't you? What definition of "cooperation" are you using?

The Arizona law would increase the state's role in immigration enforcement--even beyond what the federal government wants.

It cooperates in the sense that it would aid the federal government in enforcing immigration law. Unfortunately, the federal government is now choosing limited enforcement.

Nor does it recognize the fact that immigration is a field where the federal government is authorized to set a uniform national policy.

I don't buy the argument that a limited enforcement "policy" is the same type of policy mentioned in the constitution. We will see what the court says.

 

[marplots]

The actual complaint is now posted online for our viewing pleasure: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf
I hope this will settle the question of what the U.S. is suing for, although I fear there will be shouts of "hidden agenda!"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, but the point was that you claimed the trade-of was either raise taxes or deficit spend, and those are not in fact the only choices.

I did not. I said if "more" enforcement does not undermine the current efforts (that is, take resources away from enforcement efforts the fed currently pursues), then it would require raising taxes or deficit spending.

It's not legal to divert funds already appropriated for other pursuits to immigration enforcement, so I didn't consider that. (What's the idea? Raid Social Security to spend more on immigration enforcement?)

The federal statue you quote says what they can do. The AZ law does not violate any federal statue that restricts what they can't do.

It says they can only arrest illegals who have prior felony convictions AND prior deportations (or who had previously left the country) AND that they can only do so AFTER they have received confirmation from federal authorities. The Arizona law says they can arrest any illegal (even those with no prior felony convictions) and that they can do so before receiving confirmation from federal authorities.

I don't buy the argument that a limited enforcement "policy" is the same type of policy mentioned in the constitution.

Why not? Do you suppose the framers of the constitution were irrational people who envisioned infinite resources for enforcement of immigration laws?

Again, any actual real-world enforcement policy can be called "limited". Despite the fact that current federal enforcement is at record levels, some people think that it's not enough. But "not enough" isn't the same thing as distinguishing "limited" from "unlimited" enforcement. No matter what policy is in place, it will result in limited enforcement.

The real policy question is about the best allocation of resources. Absent comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes many of these illegals, I think the fed's policy of focusing on illegals who commit other crimes (and are even already in custody) is the best bang for the buck. I don't think using limited resources to deport huge numbers of innocuous illegals is a good idea. I also don't think it's very humane or compassionate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The actual complaint is now posted online for our viewing pleasure: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf
I hope this will settle the question of what the U.S. is suing for, although I fear there will be shouts of "hidden agenda!"

This is what I've been basing my characterization of the federal government's argument since they filed suit. It's been available on-line for a while now (since it was filed on July 6th).

ETA: I'd forgotten that the complaint quotes SB1070 in making a claim that it is establishing a policy:

3. Despite the preeminent federal authority and responsibility over immigration, the
State of Arizona recently enacted S.B. 1070, a sweeping set of provisions that are designed
to “work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens” by
making “attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government
agencies in Arizona.” See S.B. 1070 (as amended by H.B. 2162).

 

[theprestige]

Or do you suppose there are federal employees drawing salaries and not doing anything?

Just out of curiosity, where exactly do you imagine you're going with this line of questioning?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just out of curiosity, where exactly do you imagine you're going with this line of questioning?

If you read through the thread, you'll see that I'm responding to the claim that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws enough.

My point has been (aside from the outright lie that gets told often that the federal government is not enforcing immigration laws at all) that the real debate is over the policy, not sheer quantity. However, if people want simply MORE enforcement, the resources will have to come from somewhere--higher taxes, deficit spending or simply the re-allocation of current enforcement resources away from the emphasis on illegals who commit other serious crimes (which is part of the federal policy).

Even so, no matter what policy you have, resources aren't infinite and enforcement will be "limited"-- and people might claim it is not enough. In fact, federal enforcement has been at record high levels over the last several years. And the federal government attributes that increase to their emphasis on going after illegals who commit other serious crimes.

However, this is not the entirety of the federal government's policy argument in this lawsuit. They have other policy issues (such as humanitarian concerns and international relations) that they balance with enforcement which the Arizona policy doesn't even take into consideration.

 

[Neally]

I did not. I said if "more" enforcement does not undermine the current efforts (that is, take resources away from enforcement efforts the fed currently pursues), then it would require raising taxes or deficit spending.

And again, those aren't the only alternatives. Use resources from other places.

It's not legal to divert funds already appropriated for other pursuits to immigration enforcement, so I didn't consider that. (What's the idea? Raid Social Security to spend more on immigration enforcement?)

Your joking right? The president has a huge discretion if he wants to reallocate resources. He recently committed to sending national guard troops to AZ to assist.

It says they can only arrest illegals who have prior felony convictions AND prior deportations (or who had previously left the country) AND that they can only do so AFTER they have received confirmation from federal authorities. The Arizona law says they can arrest any illegal (even those with no prior felony convictions) and that they can do so before receiving confirmation from federal authorities.

We all know what it says. Again there is no federal law saying the state CAN'T do what the AZ law proposes.

Why not? Do you suppose the framers of the constitution were irrational people who envisioned infinite resources for enforcement of immigration laws?

Do you honestly think the the wording of that particular section would include in the definition of "policy" the government choosing not to fully enforce the law?

The real policy question is about the best allocation of resources. Absent comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes many of these illegals, I think the fed's policy of focusing on illegals who commit other crimes (and are even already in custody) is the best bang for the buck. I don't think using limited resources to deport huge numbers of innocuous illegals is a good idea. I also don't think it's very humane or compassionate.

Going after just the felons is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse is out. AZ and most of the rest of the country demand more than limited enforcement to just the felons.

MORE enforcement, the resources will have to come from somewhere--higher taxes, deficit spending or simply the re-allocation of current enforcement resources away from the emphasis on illegals who commit other serious crimes (which is part of the federal policy).

Wrong again: Deploy active national guard or other military troops, instead of foreign aid, use those funds domestically, use funds previously allocated to fund art, shut down the dept of education and use those funds, etc. There are plenty of sources of cost cutting ways to save money and use those funds to better enforce the immigration policy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And again, those aren't the only alternatives. Use resources from other places.

What resources? And how are those other resources funded? There is no infinite pool of resources available for enforcement.

Your joking right?

No my not.

The president has a huge discretion if he wants to reallocate resources. He recently committed to sending national guard troops to AZ to assist.

As commander in chief of the military, but even the funding for the military has to be approved by Congress.

We all know what it says. Again there is no federal law saying the state CAN'T do what the AZ law proposes.

Again, the law itself claims to establish a policy wrt immigration enforcement. The U.S. Constitution specifically says Congress has the duty and authority to establish a uniform national policy.

Do you honestly think the the wording of that particular section would include in the definition of "policy" the government choosing not to fully enforce the law?

Again, that's a BS argument. The federal government does "fully enforce" the law. I think that's just disingenuous language in place of saying that you disagree with the federal government's enforcement policy.

Their policy emphasizes spending limited resources going after more dangerous criminals, and it also balances other concerns. The Arizona policy does not take these other concerns (especially the ones that only arise at a national level, like foreign relations) into account.

And yes, I think the word "policy" used in the law is exactly the definition in question. Brewer's public statements support this interpretation. It's clear she wants to force the federal government to change its policy on the enforcement of immigration laws. As an individual, you are free to disagree with the federal government's policy. You can dissent, and express your opinion. You can campaign to get them to change the policy, and you can even campaign to get candidates more favorable to your position elected. But a state cannot set the policy.

Going after just the felons is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse is out.

That makes no sense at all. Do you think all illegal aliens are equally dangerous? Do you agree with me that convicted violent criminals are more dangerous than illegal aliens who break no other laws?

AZ and most of the rest of the country demand more than limited enforcement to just the felons.

So do I, and so does the federal government. But it's a lie to say that the federal government limits enforcement to just felons. And in case you're wonder who "they" are who are making this claim, we now know it's you.

Here's a recent ICE press release with statistics about enforcement efforts in the Northwest. You will see that "non-criminal" enforcements remains higher than "criminal".

Don't misconstrue the fact that part of the federal government's policy is to focus on violent felons as meaning the federal government limits enforcement efforts only to felons.

Wrong again: Deploy active national guard or other military troops, instead of foreign aid, use those funds domestically, use funds previously allocated to fund art, shut down the dept of education and use those funds, etc. There are plenty of sources of cost cutting ways to save money and use those funds to better enforce the immigration policy.

But you can't take money allocated for foreign aid and spend it domestically. At any rate, these are decisions made by Congress (the national budget) and the Commander-in-Chief (use of the military). A state does not have the authority to dictate these things.

And again, no matter what policy the federal government chooses, and no matter how many resources it decides to spend on immigration enforcement, you could still call that policy a "limited policy". It's not a fair or reasonable criticism. It would be like claiming states' policies wrt to murder investigation and enforcement is a "limited policy" because they don't spend all their resources investigating and prosecuting these crimes and many murders remain unsolved and many murderers remain at large.

I think if you campaigned on the idea that we need to spend virtually unlimited resources on immigration enforcement (rather than making the bogus claim that the fed is pursuing a "limited policy"), you will quickly lose popular support. I think popular support is maintained by this sort of misleading rhetoric. (And that includes the outright false claims people are making--that the federal government doesn't enforce its laws, or that the federal government limits enforcement to felons.)

 

[Neally]

But you can't take money allocated for foreign aid and spend it domestically. At any rate, these are decisions made by Congress (the national budget) and the Commander-in-Chief (use of the military). A state does not have the authority to dictate these things.

Do you at least admit that the either/or claim you made that more enforcement means either higher taxes or deficit spending is wrong? I've conclusively shown that funds and resources could be allocated to be used without either. Whether that be through Congress or POTUS.

You are also dishonestly arguing that the state wants to spend "virtually unlimited resources". Again and again the message has been the current efforts are not enough. You seem to be hung up with the idea of nailing down a definition of what is enough, as if that somehow invalidates the efforts of doing a better job.

 

[Neally]

Back to the thread topic, it seems to me that this U.S. code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001373----000-.html makes it clear that any cities that prohibit officials from passing citizenship or immigration status to the Immigration and Naturalization Service are indeed direct violation of this statute. As such, clearly Obama's challenge to the AZ law, even if found to be legitimate by the court, which I doubt it will, is hypocritical.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do you at least admit that the either/or claim you made that more enforcement means either higher taxes or deficit spending is wrong?

I didn't make that statement. I said that if you don't want to reallocate resources (that is, if the policy being promoted by Arizona is followed and you don't also take resources away from the federal policy), then you will have to raise taxes or increase deficit spending.

I've conclusively shown that funds and resources could be allocated to be used without either. Whether that be through Congress or POTUS.

You're talking in circles now. Anyway, it sounds like you admit that making these budget decisions is something that can only be done at the federal level. Do you think Arizona has the authority to force the federal government to re-allocate resources?

At any rate, no matter how you re-allocate resources, you'll still have "limited enforcement". There is no such thing as infinite enforcement. So you're not arguing about infinite versus limited enforcement. You're arguing over whose policy is correct.

As I've said, you're free as an individual to disagree with the federal policy, and there are many things you can do to try to change it. But a state is not allowed to preempt federal policyy by establishing a policy that undermines the federal policy.

You are also dishonestly arguing that the state wants to spend "virtually unlimited resources".

No I'm not. I'm honestly arguing against YOUR use of the term "limited enforcement". It was you who introduced that term to this discussion. Since there is no such thing as unlimited enforcement, it's a dishonest argument.

Again and again the message has been the current efforts are not enough.

Without a shred of evidence to refute the fact that federal enforcement as measured by deportations and arrests is at record levels. Just because an idea is widely believed doesn't make it true.

You seem to be hung up with the idea of nailing down a definition of what is enough, as if that somehow invalidates the efforts of doing a better job.

Given that federal enforcement is at all time record levels, I think the burden is on those claiming that it's not enough to say what they think "enough" is.

Again, I don't think it's about quantity. I think it's about a desire to establish a different policy. I think the same thing is true about your term "limited enforcement". Since all policies of enforcement must necessarily be limited (you agree that no one is advocating spending limitless resources on immigration enforcement), I believe that term is also really about your dislike of the federal policy.

But again, the Arizona policy is only about attrition through enforcement. The federal policy emphasizes going after the most dangerous illegals, and also balances a number of other considerations (humanitarian concerns, foreign relations, the treatment of legal visitors, etc.) which the Arizona policy doesn't take into account at all. So I do believe the federal policy is superior.

But even if Arizona had a better policy, they still lack the constitutional authority to establish that policy if it undermines or conflicts with the federal policy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Back to the thread topic, it seems to me that this U.S. code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001373----000-.html makes it clear that any cities that prohibit officials from passing citizenship or immigration status to the Immigration and Naturalization Service are indeed direct violation of this statute. As such, clearly Obama's challenge to the AZ law, even if found to be legitimate by the court, which I doubt it will, is hypocritical.

I don't think the sanctuary laws do what is prohibited by the statue you cite.

I'm not very familiar with the sanctuary laws, but if they did indeed undermine federal policy, then I would agree it's hypocritical not to sue over these laws.

If Beerina's characterization of these laws (see post 50) is accurate--and I think it is--then these laws do not violate the statute you cited or undermine the federal policy. In fact, since they're is based on humanitarian concerns, they seem compatible with federal policy as far as they go (which isn't very).