Arizona counter sues Feds over immigration.

[BobTheDonkey]

Just a reminder of what you wall nuts would be killing if you got your way

The fence would kill children?

Won't someone think of the children?

 

[Biscuit]

If lowering costs for businesses is the goal why stop at maximizing poverty? Why not get rid of safety regulation also? We may as well scrap all environmental laws while we're at it, a Dickensonian world of impoverished workers just wouldn't look right with clean air and water.

HUH? Where did I say that lowering the cost for business is the goal? I said its an economic problem and the first step would be a guest worker program. But I am impressed with your ability to jump to conclusions.

If we want to stop illegal immigration we need to ween our economy off of cheap labor.

 

[pipelineaudio]

If we want to stop illegal immigration we need to ween our economy off of cheap labor.

Only a very small part of us benefit from this cheap labor. Most of us suffer instead by having to take below minimum wage for regular jobs if we want to work

 

[WildCat]

HUH? Where did I say that lowering the cost for business is the goal?

When you said there is a demand for cheap labor. There's also demand for relaxed environmental laws, the elimination of workplace safety laws, etc etc.

I'm sure there's also a demand for child labor too.

I said its an economic problem

Can you detail this economic problem? Last I checked we didn't have a labor shortage in the USA. Maybe you know something I don't?

and the first step would be a guest worker program. But I am impressed with your ability to jump to conclusions.

What problem is the guest worker program supposed to solve? The problem of high wages and good benefits?

If we want to stop illegal immigration we need to ween our economy off of cheap labor.

And we'll do this by making labor even cheaper?

Go ahead, explain how this works: you want to import cheap foreign labor to solve the "problem" of expensive domestic labor, and somehow this will "ween our economy off of cheap labor"?

It's nonsensical.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Can you detail this economic problem? Last I checked we didn't have a labor shortage in the USA. Maybe you know something I don't?

For now.

if birthrate demographics hold out, however, we may in the future.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The drug cartel violence is not a result of illegal immigration. It's the result of our war on drugs and lax gun laws.

 

[Biscuit]

Let me start by saying you have the wrong end of the stick. I am not for cheap foreign labor. I am against building fences and adding more border patrol to solve an economic problem

When you said there is a demand for cheap labor. There's also demand for relaxed environmental laws, the elimination of workplace safety laws, etc etc.

I'm sure there's also a demand for child labor too.

When I said there is a demand for cheap labor I did not endorse that demand. Nor do I endorse child labor, which is another completely germane and rational conclusion you have jumped to.

People are not crossing the border to sit on their butts. U.S. businesses are hiring the illegals. This needs to stop.

Can you detail this economic problem? Last I checked we didn't have a labor shortage in the USA. Maybe you know something I don't?

I am not an economist nor do I have the time to detail the entirety of the economic problem. I can take you to some of the restaurants in my neighbor hood and introduce you to the dishwashers if you like. We don't have a labor shortage but we have people here illegally who will work for less than most americans would.

What problem is the guest worker program supposed to solve? The problem of high wages and good benefits?

Do you think illegal immigrants want to work for low wages and no benefits? A guest worker program would start the process of legitimizing these workers and ensuring that U.S. companies aren't paying them pennies under the table. Now if a company is having a harder and harder time finding illegal labor and is forced to pay a legal wage he is just as likely to hire a citizen as he is a guest worker. Thats the employers choice.

But yes I am trying to solve the problem of high wages and good benefits. Are you always this hysterical?

And we'll do this by making labor even cheaper?

No. what?

Go ahead, explain how this works: you want to import cheap foreign labor to solve the "problem" of expensive domestic labor, and somehow this will "ween our economy off of cheap labor"?

It's nonsensical.

I never said I wanted to import cheap foreign labor so the rest of your sentence is moot. Unless of course you can link to where I said this. I won't hold my breath.

You need to take some deep breaths and actually read what I have written without jumping to hysterical and nonsensical conclusions about what I want or am proposing before you respond.

If you just misunderstood me than all is good but please stop putting words into my mouth.

 

[WildCat]

Let me start by saying you have the wrong end of the stick. I am not for cheap foreign labor. I am against building fences and adding more border patrol to solve an economic problem

The economic problem is in Mexico. It is up to Mexico to fix its problems, and those problems will not get fixed so long as the USA enables them by taking in the victims of Mexico's rampant corruption.

When I said there is a demand for cheap labor I did not endorse that demand.

Yes, you did. Remember your call for a guest worker program?

Nor do I endorse child labor, which is another completely germane and rational conclusion you have jumped to.

Hey, it's all about giving businesses what they want, right? There's demand for cheap labor, therefore we should have a guest worker program. Well there's a demand for child labor too, why not have a child labor program? Smaller bodies do better in tight places like coal mines.

People are not crossing the border to sit on their butts. U.S. businesses are hiring the illegals. This needs to stop.

How will you stop that? Hint: a guest worker program doesn't address this at all.

I am not an economist nor do I have the time to detail the entirety of the economic problem. I can take you to some of the restaurants in my neighbor hood and introduce you to the dishwashers if you like. We don't have a labor shortage but we have people here illegally who will work for less than most americans would.

Exactly, and if there wasn't a supply of illegal workers to draw from they'd have to start offering better pay to attract dishwashers. What's wrong with good pay for hard work?

Do you think illegal immigrants want to work for low wages and no benefits? A guest worker program would start the process of legitimizing these workers and ensuring that U.S. companies aren't paying them pennies under the table.

How does a guest woirker program stop anyone from hiring illegal workers again?

Now if a company is having a harder and harder time finding illegal labor

Why would they have a harder time?

and is forced to pay a legal wage he is just as likely to hire a citizen as he is a guest worker. Thats the employers choice.

It's not about "legal" wages, the vast majority of illegal workers make at least minimum wage. It's about paying lower wages than they would be forced to pay otherwise, if they didn't have a pool of illegal or foreign guest workers to draw from.

But yes I am trying to solve the problem of high wages and good benefits. Are you always this hysterical?

And you'tre going to do that by importing workers for the sole reason that they'll work cheaper than domestic labor will?

Do explain how this works!

No. what?

The only reason you want to have a gues worker program is to import workers who will work cheaper than domestic workers. Unless you're claiming we have a labor shortage? When the unemployment rate goes back down to 4% or so and wages and benefits start rising again I'll be open to allowing more foreign workers. But we aren't there now, not even close.

I never said I wanted to import cheap foreign labor

So what's the point of the guest worker program you were pimping?

You need to take some deep breaths and actually read what I have written without jumping to hysterical and nonsensical conclusions about what I want or am proposing before you respond.

I've jumped to no conclusions. You want to import labor for the sole reason that "there is a demand for cheap labor here". Of course there's a demand for cheap labor. I'm sure your boss would love to cut your pay in half. Maybe if your guest worker plan is in place he could!

If you just misunderstood me than all is good but please stop putting words into my mouth.

I've done no such thing. You said yourself that we should have a guest worker program because there's a demand for cheap labor. I don't even have to take a baby step to reach the conclusion that lower wages and benefits is the purpose of your guest worker program. Because without a guest worker program or illegal labor to draw from wages and benefits would have to rise, oh the horror! It just wouldn't be America any more if working a full time job meant you didn't need food stamps and housing assistance to survive.

 

[JudeBrando]

Do you think illegal immigrants want to work for low wages and no benefits?

Do you think welfare recipients want to work for low wages and no benefits?

 

[pipelineaudio]

The old 1950's myth about "just doing the jobs Americans won't do" seems to still be prevalent in the heads of so many who sit in judgement. I can assure you there are no "kid jobs" for the teens to learn responsibility, nor "summer jobs" for high schoolers anymore, since Operation Gatekeeper. Start moving up the chain, and even the security and labor that works in the secure areas of the airport are illegal. Management at hotels is often illegal. Waiters at 100 dollar a plate restaraunts are illegal. The construction crews who built these tract houses that plunged the nations economy into dust are illegals.

These aren't jobs Americans won't do. Furthermore they sure as hell aren't jobs you would call "cheap labor". They're cheap now, but only because of illegal labor. Seems we did ok back when citizens were being paid fair wages for building houses. I can't believe that somehow paying a painter a fair wage would collapse the economy...it sure didn't a few years ago.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No. A state cannot set foreign policy. A state building a wall along an international border would certainly affect foreign policy.

I call BS on this. In this case, Congress has already set the foreign policy. It flatly states there shall be no crossing of the border except at designated ports of entry. If Arizona should decide that it wants to build a wall to prevent activity that's already illegal under federal law then I see no reason they shouldn't be able to do so. To put a different light on it, consider that importation of cocaine is (in general) prohibited under federal law. If Arizona were to make a law criminalizing (in general) the importation of cocaine across its borders, this would be perfectly fine, even if the importation occurs across its southern border. In that case, Arizona is doing nothing the federal government already disallows. The policy is set already in both cases, and if Arizona's actions make the policy more effective, that's inconsequential as to what the policy actually is.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I call BS on this. In this case, Congress has already set the foreign policy. It flatly states there shall be no crossing of the border except at designated ports of entry. If Arizona should decide that it wants to build a wall to prevent activity that's already illegal under federal law then I see no reason they shouldn't be able to do so. To put a different light on it, consider that importation of cocaine is (in general) prohibited under federal law.

It is not in the state's authority to enforce federal laws, and it is especially not in their authority to set the enforcement policy, especially if their policy undermines federal policy.

If Arizona were to make a law criminalizing (in general) the importation of cocaine across its borders, this would be perfectly fine, even if the importation occurs across its southern border. In that case, Arizona is doing nothing the federal government already disallows.

I'm not even claiming conflict preemption, so it's not relevant that Arizona might be passing laws that are identical to federal laws. The fact is the states cannot set up any import policies at all--not even across interstate borders within the U.S. and certainly not with other countries--without the consent of the U.S. Congress.

See Article I Section 10: Powers prohibited of States.

The policy is set already in both cases, and if Arizona's actions make the policy more effective, that's inconsequential as to what the policy actually is.

Actually that's not true. The federal enforcement policy, as I'm pretty sure I've mentioned, focuses on criminal illegal aliens. A state law that undermines this policy is not legal under the Supremacy Clause. A state cannot dictate how federal laws are to be enforced.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It is not in the state's authority to enforce federal laws, and it is especially not in their authority to set the enforcement policy, especially if their policy undermines federal policy.

The wall would not be enforcing a federal law, only making it more difficult to do something Congress has already prohibited.

I'm not even claiming conflict preemption, so it's not relevant that Arizona might be passing laws that are identical to federal laws. The fact is the states cannot set up any import policies at all--not even across interstate borders within the U.S. and certainly not with other countries--without the consent of the U.S. Congress.

See Article I Section 10: Powers prohibited of States.

So the cocaine example may have been not the best but it was all I could come up with at the moment.

Actually that's not true. The federal enforcement policy, as I'm pretty sure I've mentioned, focuses on criminal illegal aliens. A state law that undermines this policy is not legal under the Supremacy Clause. A state cannot dictate how federal laws are to be enforced.

Your reliance on the supremacy clause is overstated. The supremacy clause states that the Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. It says not one word about whether or not the executive decides to enforce it.

Furthermore, if Congress prohibits X, the federal government has no room to whine if a state does something to further its own legitimate state interests simply because it makes it more difficult for people to do X. It's already been prohibited, so Congress has already made its determination that it should not happen. Making something that's already prohibited more difficult has, in theory, no effect whatsoever on foreign affairs.

 

[Biscuit]

The economic problem is in Mexico. It is up to Mexico to fix its problems, and those problems will not get fixed so long as the USA enables them by taking in the victims of Mexico's rampant corruption.

Well a large part of the problem is in mexico but its businesses here in America that are hiring the illegal immigrants.

Yes, you did. Remember your call for a guest worker program?

No, I didn't. You have a different definition of a guest worker program than I do.

Hey, it's all about giving businesses what they want, right? There's demand for cheap labor, therefore we should have a guest worker program. Well there's a demand for child labor too, why not have a child labor program? Smaller bodies do better in tight places like coal mines.

Again you are using a different and highly illogical definition of guest worker program and then you jump to another incredibly stupid conclusion that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

How will you stop that? Hint: a guest worker program doesn't address this at all.

A guest worker program is one of many things that need to occur. If you go back and look at my first post about it I called it a "first step".

Exactly, and if there wasn't a supply of illegal workers to draw from they'd have to start offering better pay to attract dishwashers. What's wrong with good pay for hard work?

nothing.

How does a guest woirker program stop anyone from hiring illegal workers again?

And there you go again putting words into my mouth. I never said that it did. I called it a first step.

Why would they have a harder time?


It's not about "legal" wages, the vast majority of illegal workers make at least minimum wage. It's about paying lower wages than they would be forced to pay otherwise, if they didn't have a pool of illegal or foreign guest workers to draw from.


And you'tre going to do that by importing workers for the sole reason that they'll work cheaper than domestic labor will?

Do explain how this works!

Your version of a guest worker program as some sort of legitimized slave labor pool is asinine.

The only reason you want to have a gues worker program is to import workers who will work cheaper than domestic workers. Unless you're claiming we have a labor shortage? When the unemployment rate goes back down to 4% or so and wages and benefits start rising again I'll be open to allowing more foreign workers. But we aren't there now, not even close.


So what's the point of the guest worker program you were pimping?

No I do not want to import cheap labor, that is what is currently happening. A guest worker program will allow for people who want to seek work here be hired at a reasonable wage and not paid pennies under the table. They wont have to hide and employers wont be able to take advantage of them. Its a first step in weening our economy off of the cheap imported labor and will most likely result in more jobs for Americans. Our current unemployment levels have caused a decrees in illegal immigration. I am just proposing that if people want jobs over here we have a legal method of doing it.

Along with this we need stronger enforcement of labor laws and we need to punish those that are hiring illegals. I think these steps make a lot more sense than spending billions on fencing.

I've jumped to no conclusions. You want to import labor for the sole reason that "there is a demand for cheap labor here". Of course there's a demand for cheap labor. I'm sure your boss would love to cut your pay in half. Maybe if your guest worker plan is in place he could!

Yes you have jumped to a number of conclusions and you have offered no solutions of your own. Instead you try and make connections between what I have said and a ridiculous conclusion like me supporting child labor. This is a childish form of debate.

Also, I own my own business so no one can cut my wages but me.

I've done no such thing. You said yourself that we should have a guest worker program because there's a demand for cheap labor. I don't even have to take a baby step to reach the conclusion that lower wages and benefits is the purpose of your guest worker program. Because without a guest worker program or illegal labor to draw from wages and benefits would have to rise, oh the horror! It just wouldn't be America any more if working a full time job meant you didn't need food stamps and housing assistance to survive.

No. I said there is a demand for cheap labor and that we should have a guest worker program. I did not say that the guest worker program should occur because there is a demand for cheap labor.

The purpose is not low wages, where did I ever state that? You are, once again, jumping to conclusion.

A guest worker program would have numerous benifits on both sodes of the border.

1. Legitimate employers would not have to go through the hoops and hurdles of ensuring their employes are here legally

2. Skilled laborers from across the border could try and find work in a safe and legal manor

3. American workers would no longer have to compete with a labor force at half the price

4. Border crime would decrees. There would be a lot less rapes and murders at the hands of coyotes.

5. American businesses would have a new labor force to pull from. Believe it or not there are a lot of highly skilled immigrants.

Those are just off the top of my head. I am certain there are many more benefits. Also seeing as how building fences doesn't reap any of these benefits I am dead set against doing that.

I am also open to other ideas, do you have any?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The wall would not be enforcing a federal law, only making it more difficult to do something Congress has already prohibited.

How is that not enforcing federal law?

You should read Bolton's decision.

You're rehashing several failed arguments that were dealt with there.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your reliance on the supremacy clause is overstated. The supremacy clause states that the Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. It says not one word about whether or not the executive decides to enforce it.

No, that comes with the naturalization clause of Article I Section 8. Congress has authority to establish a uniform national policy. (And before you try to argue that "naturalization" doesn't include immigration, I assure you that there is case law that says explicitly that it includes everything to do with the treatment of aliens.)

Furthermore, if Congress prohibits X, the federal government has no room to whine if a state does something to further its own legitimate state interests simply because it makes it more difficult for people to do X. It's already been prohibited, so Congress has already made its determination that it should not happen. Making something that's already prohibited more difficult has, in theory, no effect whatsoever on foreign affairs.

That's not at all true. In the example of SB1070, the law would have forced the federal government to abandon its policy of focusing on criminal illegal aliens to deal with a deluge of state requests for immigrant status verification. It would have forced the fed to adopt the attrition through enforcement policy.

This really is a federal decision. As mentioned earlier (I think it was this thread), if a state has an interest in influencing federal policy, it has to be done through the federal authority. Arizona's members of Congress could introduce legislation on the matter, for example. The state legislature doesn't have this authority.

 

[WildCat]

Well a large part of the problem is in mexico but its businesses here in America that are hiring the illegal immigrants.

And? Why do you think they hire illegal workers? This is the demand for cheap labor you were talking about, yes?

No, I didn't. You have a different definition of a guest worker program than I do.




Again you are using a different and highly illogical definition of guest worker program and then you jump to another incredibly stupid conclusion that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.




A guest worker program is one of many things that need to occur. If you go back and look at my first post about it I called it a "first step".

Go ahead, describe this guest worker program of yours. I'm dying to hear how importing workers from another country to work for cheap is somehow going to cause wages and benefits to rise.

nothing.

So why undermine it?

And there you go again putting words into my mouth. I never said that it did. I called it a first step.

So what problem is a guest worker program going to solve? Why would anyone hire a guest worker when they can hire illegal workers for cheap?

Your version of a guest worker program as some sort of legitimized slave labor pool is asinine.

I'm still waiting to hear what your version is.

No I do not want to import cheap labor, that is what is currently happening. A guest worker program will allow for people who want to seek work here be hired at a reasonable wage and not paid pennies under the table. They wont have to hide and employers wont be able to take advantage of them. Its a first step in weening our economy off of the cheap imported labor and will most likely result in more jobs for Americans. Our current unemployment levels have caused a decrees in illegal immigration. I am just proposing that if people want jobs over here we have a legal method of doing it.

How can your guest worker program possibly succeed if they're getting paid more than illegal workers? Why wouldn't businesses continue to just hire illegal workers?

Along with this we need stronger enforcement of labor laws and we need to punish those that are hiring illegals. I think these steps make a lot more sense than spending billions on fencing.

So you are in favor of unannounced workplace raids by ICE to check for illegal workers, and deporting any that are found along with sanctions on the empoyers?

Yes you have jumped to a number of conclusions and you have offered no solutions of your own. Instead you try and make connections between what I have said and a ridiculous conclusion like me supporting child labor. This is a childish form of debate.

You don't get to say things and not consider the implications of what are said. When you say we need a guest worker program because there's a demand for cheap labor then the implications of that is cheap labor is good, high wages and benefits are bad. Otherwise you'd be in favor of filling employment slots not by importing cheap labor, but by raising wages and benefits high enough to attract domestic workers.

Also, I own my own business so no one can cut my wages but me.

If your customers can get the same service from others for less, you'll either have to cut your own pay or go out of business. And I know this all too well, being in the construction business.

No. I said there is a demand for cheap labor and that we should have a guest worker program. I did not say that the guest worker program should occur because there is a demand for cheap labor.

So what need is this guest worker program of yours filling?

The purpose is not low wages, where did I ever state that? You are, once again, jumping to conclusion.

No more so than if you say "2 plus 2" and I conclude you mean "4".

A guest worker program would have numerous benifits on both sodes of the border.

1. Legitimate employers would not have to go through the hoops and hurdles of ensuring their employes are here legally

How will you enforce this? What will you do with the illegal workers you find?

2. Skilled laborers from across the border could try and find work in a safe and legal manor

What's the benefit for the US in this?

3. American workers would no longer have to compete with a labor force at half the price

Why not? What will you have in place to prevent the hiring of illegal workers?

4. Border crime would decrees. There would be a lot less rapes and murders at the hands of coyotes.

Not unless you also have a vigorous program in place to prevent the hiring of illegal workers. I have seen no such program yet offered by you.

5. American businesses would have a new labor force to pull from. Believe it or not there are a lot of highly skilled immigrants.

And there's already programs in place to bring in skilled foreign workers where a shortage of domestic workers exists. And even this is abused, the Pakistani who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square was in the country under this program, despite not being particularly skilled in anything other than willing to work cheaper than domestic skilled labor.

Those are just off the top of my head. I am certain there are many more benefits. Also seeing as how building fences doesn't reap any of these benefits I am dead set against doing that.

I am also open to other ideas, do you have any?

My point is unless you have a vigorous program in place to prevent the hiring of illegal workers your plan is doomed to failure. Are you in favor of unannounced workplace ICE inspections? The deportaton of illegal workers you find? Real sanctions on those who hire illegal workers?

Otherwise, all you're offering is what we have right now.

 

[JudeBrando]

Yes. Why is the state of Arizona trying to take away the citizenship status of fellow Americans. (the so-called "anchor babies")

Do you approve of the interpretation that allows for these "anchor babies" or not?

 

[JudeBrando]

They want to "try to" do it themselves, but they want the federal government to pay for it.

So you would approve of the citizens of Arizona paying for it themselves and getting it done?

 

[JudeBrando]

Statehood for Mexico?

Surrender or take over?