Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[bynmdsue]

Sorry man but the narritive has been set.Only knuckle dragging Klansmen are against illegal immigration and any efforts to curb it.

 

[BeAChooser]

He asked you a question.

No he didn't.

If you're not being racist, then can you explain what the figures you cited were intended to signify?

I didn't cite any figures, Joe. You need to pay better attention.

 

[Kopji]

Using simple data from the DHS and Census web sites, Arizona is second only to California in the percentage of (estimated) illegal aliens within the population.
Approximately 6.52%. CA has the highest at 6.57%.

I'm ok to this point, and agree with your statistics. I agree that Ariz & Calif represent high illegal immigrants - about 6%. The illegal immigration problem is real, but only about a "4-5%" problem for most states, maybe not even that high.

Bottom line is that beautiful Arizona is not real significant when it comes to the priority of national problems.

But here's the part I don't understand, the part I called racist.

In AZ that's more than the percentage of the population that is 'Black' (4.2%) or 'Asian' (2.5%). And it's almost more than those two percentages combined.

So what is the point with this extra statistic? What other conclusion am I supposed to draw?

My rebuttal argument started sounding like this:

Why sure, Blacks and Asians are a low demographic in Arizona. But I can attest that Native Americans make fine non white targets for discrimination and hate, and represent about 30% of the population. So rest assured that in Arizona we have our fair share of non whites not pulling the load.

- Things I never said

I'll re-state: Give or take a few fractions, there's more 'illegal aliens' in AZ than there are Asians AND Blacks combined. Yep, there's no problem there!

I'm sorry if I'm implying this is a racist idea that you don't intend, but I'm struggling with other meanings.

I don't want to get off topic, but the immigration problems represented by the "6.5%" are something more complex and have less impact than 6.5%.
When I say it is less and more complex - a large business will outsource labor to another country to lower wage costs. Illegal immigrants are a part of our normal economy that businesses can use to get the lower labor price they want without sending the jobs out of country or raising prices beyond what the market will bear.

We all say and agree that we want the (federal) government to do something, but what they are doing is nothing. In this instance "nothing" IS an action that has an effect on the economy. Even though we don't like the answer - there might be some economic stimulation benefit to illegal immigration - it acts to keep other jobs here. Nobody will admit that, or say it out loud, but they might be thinking it...

And that last part might be all wrong, but at least not as whacked as that blacks and Asians thing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Robbing a federally insured bank is a federal crime. It's also a crime under the statutes of the State of Arizona. Should the Justice Department file a lawsuit against Arizona demanding that Arizona law enforcement officials cease enforcing Arizona's law against robbing banks because it undermines and preempts federal authority? Just asking.

If state laws are passed that undermine and conflict with the federal policy, then yes, the federal law takes supremacy.
[ETA: To my knowledge, there is no uniform federal policy wrt bank robbery, so I don't think there's anything that a state law on this topic can undermine or conflict with.]

You have recast this as if the federal government is suing Arizona for enforcing federal law, but that's not the case.

They are suing Arizona for passing a law which undermines and conflicts with federal policy on immigration. Immigration is part of the "naturalization" authority granted to the U.S. Congress in the Constitution. There is to be a "uniform" policy, not a different policy in each state.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Being that mexican culture is completely inseparable from arizonans' self identity, and that so many of us are mexicans, this "racism" you bigots claim upon us is nothing but fairy dust, and yes, irrational for you to accuse us of

It would be irrational to accuse all Arizonans of being racist, but nobody is doing that, so you're arguing against a straw man here.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If state laws are passed that undermine and conflict with the federal policy, then yes, the federal law takes supremacy.
[ETA: To my knowledge, there is no uniform federal policy wrt bank robbery, so I don't think there's anything that a state law on this topic can undermine or conflict with.]

You have recast this as if the federal government is suing Arizona for enforcing federal law, but that's not the case.

They are suing Arizona for passing a law which undermines and conflicts with federal policy on immigration. Immigration is part of the "naturalization" authority granted to the U.S. Congress in the Constitution. There is to be a "uniform" policy, not a different policy in each state.

As I understand it, the Arizona law does not interfere with Federal law. It interferes with the executive branch's decision on non-enforcement on parts of that law. I'm not sure that the federal government can use the supremacy clause on policy statements.

 

[Neally]

They are suing Arizona for passing a law which undermines and conflicts with federal policy on immigration. Immigration is part of the "naturalization" authority granted to the U.S. Congress in the Constitution. There is to be a "uniform" policy, not a different policy in each state.

Explain to me how the Arizona law "undermines" and conflicts with US policy. And explain how the state law against robbing a bank doesn't undermine and conflict with US laws.

I'd also be interested to know how city "sanctuary laws" don't undermine and conflict with federal policy.

 

[applecorped]

Wouldn't santuary cities be usurping federal policy?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Because such power is exclusively reserved to Congress.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Explain to me how the Arizona law "undermines" and conflicts with US policy.

You can read the lawsuit itself. I've already posted a link and summarized the plaintiff's position.

And explain how the state law against robbing a bank doesn't undermine and conflict with US laws.

Perhaps you should explain how it does?

I don't think there is a U.S. policy wrt to bank robbery, and if there is, I don't know how it would in any way be different from a state policy or law. Also, as I mentioned, a uniform naturalization policy is the duty of the U.S. Congress to establish, according to the U.S. Constitution. I don't know of any similar clause wrt to a uniform bank robbery policy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd also be interested to know how city "sanctuary laws" don't undermine and conflict with federal policy.

Wouldn't santuary cities be usurping federal policy?

Maybe so, but that's not the topic here, is it?

Even if sanctuary laws should also be challenged under the supremacy clause, that doesn't argue anything at all about the Arizona law. If this is on topic (and being offered as an argument against U.S.'s position on preemption in this lawsuit), then it is an example of the Two Wrongs Make a Right fallacy, at best.

It could also be that the federal government doesn't consider sanctuary laws to be counter to their national immigration policy. (I don't think those laws block the federal government from doing anything, do they?) I don't know.

 

[Neally]

You can read the lawsuit itself. I've already posted a link and summarized the plaintiff's position.

I've read it and the "preemption" point seems to boil down to "we're too busy tracking down terrorists to be worrying much about other illegal aliens" which is pretty much the point of why AZ passed the law in the first place - the Federal government isn't doing enough.

Even if sanctuary laws should also be challenged under the supremacy clause, that doesn't argue anything at all about the Arizona law.

No, but it clearly points out the fact that that this lawsuit is politically motivated rather than based on legal concerns.

 

[Kopji]

Do you think Kopji was correct in thinking that the statistics that were posted were meant to suggest "that blacks and Asians are inherently a lesser kind of citizen - just above illegal immigrants?" That's MY question to you.

Actually, Kopji asked beachooser to clarify what he meant, trying to give the benefit of the doubt that he was not making a fallacious argument by bringing in personal racial prejudices to support his slippery slope.

I will take silence as an affirmation that this is exactly what was being attempted, and move on.

The federal position as explained yesterday is not extremist and seems very common sense. It essentially affirms what I've stated earlier about the federal government being largely comfortable with the national status quo of illegal immigration. Arizona is rocking a boat that nobody in Washington really wants rocked.

*********

If California had enacted this law instead of Arizona the effect would be an exit of illegal immigrants to nearby states (as well as Mexico). Arizona (with a much smaller economy) would need to absorb a huge number of illegal immigrants from California or increase the size of government in order to expel them. Mexico would need to receive millions of citizens with no jobs back into their economy. (The cost figure I've seen on this is about $500 billion over five years, and does not really take into account how Mexico might react.)

So the feds want to avoid a scaled up version of what would happen inside Arizona now between rural and metro areas. Just as the current law would cause a disproportionate burden on rural law enforcement inside the state, a national version of the law would cause a disproportionate burden between large and small state economies.

 

[BeAChooser]

deleted

 

[WildCat]

The first hearings on the lawsuit were held today, coverage here: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...mmigration-law-federal-judge-reviews-law.html

It doesn't look like this judge (a Clinton appointee) is very sympathetic to most of the feds case so far.

 

[MikeMangum]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201548.html?hpid=topnews

PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement.

...

Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.

"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

...

Bolton did not indicate how she might rule, saying only that she will take the matter "under advisement." But she did subject Justice Department lawyers to some pointed questions.

The Arizona law does not, in any way, conflict with Federal law. It might very well conflict with the policy decisions of the Federal government, but that is not preemption of Federal law.

For those who think this is a preemption issue, can you tell me what the actual legal conflict is? Which portion of the Arizona bill conflicts with which portion of Federal law? I'm not talking about policy, I'm talking about law.

 

[AlBell]

So the feds want to avoid a scaled up version of what would happen inside Arizona now between rural and metro areas. Just as the current law would cause a disproportionate burden on rural law enforcement inside the state, a national version of the law would cause a disproportionate burden between large and small state economies.

What do you predict when every state passes a law similar to AZ's?

 

[wastepanel]

What do you predict when every state passes a law similar to AZ's?

Fairness.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Arizona law does not, in any way, conflict with Federal law. It might very well conflict with the policy decisions of the Federal government, but that is not preemption of Federal law.

For those who think this is a preemption issue, can you tell me what the actual legal conflict is? Which portion of the Arizona bill conflicts with which portion of Federal law? I'm not talking about policy, I'm talking about law.

The Arizona law authorizes (maybe even requires) state and local police to make arrests wrt to illegal aliens who do not have prior felonies or deportations and prior to getting confirmation from federal authorities. Federal law, on the other hand 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.

Sure looks like a flat out conflict to me.

If your argument is that the Arizona law does not conflict with federal law or establish a policy that undermines federal law, then what does it change?

It might very well conflict with the policy decisions of the Federal government, but that is not preemption of Federal law.

The U.S. constitution authorizes and requires the U.S. Congress to establish a uniform national policy on naturalization. If Arizona law conflicts with that policy (that is, if it establishes a policy that undermines that of the federal government), it is unconstitutional. [ETA: While you may not be talking about policy, the U.S. Constitution definitely does. See Article I Section 8, the fourth clause.]

ETA: I wouldn't read too much into the questions the judge asked during oral arguments. She also noted that the Arizona law has indeed had effects on international relations (something that is behind the idea of a uniform national policy). If she's a good judge, she hasn't made up her mind on any of these points, but merely wants both sides to respond to questions that might challenge their arguments.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, Brewer recently said something to the effect that Arizona will make a great number of arrests and turn them over to federal authorities even if that's not what federal authorities want and even if it swamps their ability to process all these relatively innocuous illegals.

Federal policy on enforcement in recent years has been to focus on illegal aliens who commit other serious crimes. They attribute the record levels of enforcement to this exact policy.

To me it makes good sense (at least unless or until we have comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes our dependence on migrant labor which is often currently illegal) to spend finite resources going after illegals who commit other crimes rather than swamping the system with large numbers of illegals who are otherwise law-abiding and upon whom our economy depends to some extent.

Does Brewer want increased federal taxes or increased federal deficit spending to accommodate Arizona's immigration enforcement policy without taking away from the policy the federal government is already pursuing? And if so, it's seems that there's a clear preemption issue, since states shouldn't be allowed to decide matters of federal budgeting. If not, then there must be a trade off, and her policy would clearly undermine federal policy. (I suppose there is a third alternative--that she thinks there are significant unused federal resources. I don't believe that is factually true since, as I've been pointing out, federal enforcement of illegals has been at record high levels in recent years, contrary to claims that federal laws aren't enforced.)