Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[Neally]

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.]

The AZ law doesn't have anything to do with the process or policy of naturalization, which is the way a foreigner becomes a US citizen.

 

[Neally]

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?

The only one that knows the answer to that is Brewer, but frankly it's of no regard to the state as to how the US government figures out how to pay to enforce the laws. The laws are on the books and it's the Federal governments responsibility to enforce them. The current policy of limited enforcement is the reason behind the AZ law.

If the government is arguing that the AZ law is or will effect the current policy of limited enforcement, well that is a pretty lame way to attack the AZ law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The AZ law doesn't have anything to do with the process or policy of naturalization, which is the way a foreigner becomes a US citizen.

You won't win the argument on the point that naturalization doesn't cover immigration and the treatment of aliens, I promise you.

Naturalization includes enforcement of immigration laws. This has long been established in Supreme Court cases. For example, in Galvan v. Press (1954), the court said (my bolding):

Clause qualifies the scope of political discretion heretofore recognized as belonging to Congress in regulating the entry and deportation of aliens. And since the intrinsic consequences of deportation are so close to punishment for crime, it might fairly be said also that the ex post facto Clause, even though applicable only to punitive legislation, [Footnote 4] should be applied to deportation.
But the slate is not clean. As to the extent of the power of Congress under review, there is not merely "a page of history," New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 256 U. S. 349, but a whole volume. Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. In the enforcement of these policies, the Executive Branch of the Government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 189 U. S. 101; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 339 U. S. 49. But that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.

If your narrow reading of naturalization were correct, do you suppose states have the right to deport illegals? (Even Arizona isn't attempting to go that far!)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The current policy of limited enforcement is the reason behind the AZ law.

You speak as if a policy of "unlimited enforcement" is possible when all enforcement must be finite.

That's why I say the real disagreement is over the federal government's policy to focus on illegals who commit other crimes. (FWIW, deportations of "non-criminal" illegals is still higher than that of those who commit other crimes. This is all about relative emphasis--a policy question--and not sheer quantity.)

If the government is arguing that the AZ law is or will effect[sic] the current policy of limited enforcement, well that is a pretty lame way to attack the AZ law.

Why? The federal government is given authority and responsibility to establish a national uniform policy. If Arizona passes a law that undermines that policy, then the supremacy clause (and the naturalization clause) tells us that the Arizona law is unconstitutional.

It seems that the strongest argument Arizona has is that the law doesn't establish a policy--even though they seem to recognize that it will interfere with the federal policy by swamping their ability to process large numbers of what I've been calling "innocuous" illegals at the cost of pursuing those who commit other serious crimes.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The laws are on the books and it's the Federal governments [sic] responsibility to enforce them.

Wait a second! Surely you're not making the claim that the federal Government doesn't enforce immigration laws!

If not, then you seem to be agreeing with me that Arizona has no business trying to establish a policy (especially one that conflicts with that of the federal government) wrt to the enforcement of immigration laws.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

I think that's a good example of a specific way that the Arizona law could undermine a uniform national policy. But I don't think this movement of illegals from one state to another is the only example of the more general point.

I think even if the law only did what Arizona wants (doesn't result in racial profiling or lots of lawsuits alleging discrimination; doesn't result in many illegals moving to other states; etc.), and results in them turning over many tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocuous illegals, it still undermines federal policy. Federal policy emphasizes deportation of illegals who commit other serious crimes. If they are bogged down processing a raft of illegals in Arizona that are otherwise innocuous, it would result in a policy change. In fact, from remarks Brewer has made, it sounds like the very intention of the law is to change the way the federal government approaches enforcement of immigration laws.

 

[Neally]

You won't win the argument on the point that naturalization doesn't cover immigration and the treatment of aliens, I promise you.
If your narrow reading of naturalization were correct, do you suppose states have the right to deport illegals? (Even Arizona isn't attempting to go that far!)

Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born. - Wikipedia. The AZ law does nothing to this. Immigration policy is a completely separate principle. AZ does nothing about deportation, you know that.

Why? The federal government is given authority and responsibility to establish a national uniform policy. If Arizona passes a law that undermines that policy, then the supremacy clause (and the naturalization clause) tells us that the Arizona law is unconstitutional.

Because if the "policy" that the AZ supposedly interferes with is a policy of limited enforcement, that is a lame argument.

If not, then you seem to be agreeing with me that Arizona has no business trying to establish a policy (especially one that conflicts with that of the federal government) wrt to the enforcement of immigration laws.

AZ is not establishing or interfering with federal policy except in the sense that the "policy" is limited enforcement. It does not interfere with the legal policies.

 

[Wolrab]

Just the other day, a guy was pulled over by the New York State Police for erratic driving. The guy was apparently drunk and further investigation turned up that he is an illegal alien. The State Police turned him over to ICE. He is a native of Mexico.

Does this make the NYSP racists?
Did the NYSP violate federal law?

 

[WildCat]

Just the other day, a guy was pulled over by the New York State Police for erratic driving. The guy was apparently drunk and further investigation turned up that he is an illegal alien. The State Police turned him over to ICE. He is a native of Mexico.

Does this make the NYSP racists?
Did the NYSP violate federal law?

OMFG! I'm boycotting reruns of Seinfeld.

 

[pipelineaudio]

all these relatively innocuous illegals.

You keep making this claim of their harmlessness

Would you join me in supporting a law that gives them free passage from the mexican border to your neighborhood? I'm willing to put my share in for bus fare

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You keep making this claim of their harmlessness

For the record, I did not make a claim of their harmlessness. I made a point of their relative harmlessness. (I've been using the term often. If I've left out the word "relative" on occasion, I hope that by now it's understood that that's what I mean given the consistent argument I've been making.) For example, an illegal alien who doesn't commit any other crimes is not nearly as harmful as an illegal alien that commits murder or rape.

Do you disagree?

Don't you think our uniform national policy on immigration enforcement should target the most harmful illegals?

But back to the question of harm in general, how exactly do illegal aliens harm you? Is there any harm they do to you that isn't done by people in the country legally?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born. - Wikipedia.

So again, if you believe this narrow interpretation (which the courts do not), do you think states have the authority to deport illegals?

Seriously, there is a raft of case law that puts the treatment of aliens within Congress' naturalization authority. That's why you won't hear Arizona lawyers even attempting the argument that Congress doesn't have authority over the treatment of illegals because they're not being naturalized. Refusing naturalization is indeed an important part of the naturalization authority.

AZ is not establishing or interfering with federal policy except in the sense that the "policy" is limited enforcement.

Then why does the text of SB1070 say that it is attempting to establish a policy?

From the federal government's complaint:

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).

[ETA: And yet again, any real-world policy can be called "limited". The Arizona law does not establish a policy of infinite enforcement. In fact, the federal government's argument is that the law would actually hamper enforcement.]

Again, no one is claiming that Arizona is trying to establish a federal policy. (That doesn't even make sense.) The claim is that Arizona is establishing a policy on the enforcement of immigration laws within the state that undermines and conflicts with the federal policy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just the other day, a guy was pulled over by the New York State Police for erratic driving. The guy was apparently drunk and further investigation turned up that he is an illegal alien. The State Police turned him over to ICE. He is a native of Mexico.

Does this make the NYSP racists?
Did the NYSP violate federal law?

No, and no.

What does that have to do with the lawsuit in question or the Arizona law?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Don't you think our uniform national policy on immigration enforcement should target the most harmful illegals?

It should at least start there, but instead they are let go, as there is no political will to deport them

But back to the question of harm in general, how exactly do illegal aliens harm you? Is there any harm they do to you that isn't done by people in the country legally?

As someone who primarily servers the food service and construction industries, as well as someone who has a kid in school, as well as needing frequent medical care, as well as the victim of several hit and splits, as well as having a wife with a terminal injury due to another hit and split I am far too biased to give you an answer you'd like to hear.

 

[Neally]

Again, no one is claiming that Arizona is trying to establish a federal policy. (That doesn't even make sense.) The claim is that Arizona is establishing a policy on the enforcement of immigration laws within the state that undermines and conflicts with the federal policy.

But the only way it "undermines and conflicts" with federal policy is that it may cause more work for the federal government by referring illegals to them that the federal government chooses not to pursue, which is a lame argument that undermines federal policy, and one that I am doubtful that the courts will agree with.

 

[INRM]

At first I was completely opposed to this, but now that I think about it, the Federal laws allowed the exact same things to be done. The only one thing I do not like about the Arizona bill is the fact that it gives the people excessive latitude to sue the cops if they do not believe they are doing their job well enough -- something which I believe would encourage overzealousness. The Federal agencies responsible for this are neglecting their responsibilities, of course, due to political reasons

• For the Republicans, it's about getting a whole bunch of cheap inexpensive labor
• For the Democrats, it's about granting them amnesty, then trying to register them as Democrats to get a whole bunch of extra votes
• For the Administration, it prevents the border from being patrolled, and thus helps pave the way for a biometric National-ID card, which would contain an RFID chip, and would be required for all American citizens to have in order to gain employment, would double as a drivers-license and thus would have to be carried at all times. It would allow Americans to be easily tracked, and require data on them to be collected, that in many states, is only collected when one is arrested for a crime, and thus is punitive to the majority of the American public.
• For those bent on a World Government, it erodes the National Sovereignty of the United States[/LIST
  
  And for the record, I'm not asking for the Federal Government to go berzerk on the border and go around rounding up and deporting anybody and everybody for no reason, or to produce the illusion of them "getting things done", and/or engaging in rampant, mass surveillance or anything.
  
  I'm just asking them to do the jobs that they were supposed to do, and haven't done for quite awhile.
  
  
  INRM

 

[pipelineaudio]

INRM the ability to sue wasn't intended to cause people to sue police, it was to force rogue agencies like the Department of Economic Security to stop thumbing their noses at laws and policies. DES has signs in their offices that illegals won't be reported when applying for health and cash assistance. It is also to end zones of non enforcement like the south east corner of 32nd street and mcdowell, where an open air illegal/fake/stolen identity market exists unimpeded

 

[Kopji]

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

I think that one of the articles I linked indicated that it would cost about 30 billion dollars and 5 years to implement the law immediately everywhere. The calculations did not include the financial impact in Mexico of having millions of unemployed refugees on the border.

Personally I suspect it would be a little like having a war, only much closer than we usually do.

On the Judge - she seems rather balanced and fair minded to me. She is looking at each section like I'd expect a judge to. She has already stated that she will not suspend the entire law, but certainly has some pointed concerns about the law enforcement sections.

 

[Kopji]

I don't really like to stand up for the federal government, which I actually think have enough advocates - but they are working hard, and do send back a lot of illegal immigrants all the time. In fact I saw an estimate that 17% of Arizona prison inmates were illegals. What the feds are doing is what they say they are doing - focusing on the criminals. To focus on everyone is going to increase the cost for someone and this means a bigger police state government - a Republican specialty. (had to get that in).

There have been about 2000 more border guards sent here recently - and you America, yes you taxpayers - thank you very much for this increased focus on lil ol' Arizona. (Not anywhere near Milwaukee).

 

[Kopji]

Sorry typo. I missed a zero back there. That was $300 billion not $30 billion.
Sort of an interesting site:
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Deporting_illegal_immigrants_in_the_US

I don't really think the 'cost' argument is valid though. Too many variables. What if people resist instead of going quietly? If we want something bad enough we would pay. It is more around calculating our will to do something and accept the consequences.

The consequences would be to create a humanitarian crisis involving millions of people. I don't think we have the collective will. Sure, we would start out thinking it is easy and quick... not like we haven't done that before.

A strategy of securing the border better is not a bad idea. Making it difficult for businesses to hire illegal aliens is a good idea. Helping improve economic conditions in Mexico and relations with them is probably not a bad idea either - the root cause is the disparity of income.