Arizona counter sues Feds over immigration.

[JudeBrando]

I don't think Arizona will be happy until things flare up into an all out race war.

1. Why the need to villify fellow Americans?
2. Do you think citizens of Arizona might be happy if the border was enforced?
3. Is that too much to ask?
4. When will Mexico be happy?

Travis?

 

[tyr_13]

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

Um, are you asking if he approves of the Fourteenth Amendment or not?

I know I approve of it.

 

[Piggy]

Um, are you asking if he approves of the Fourteenth Amendment or not?

I know I approve of it.

Do you mind if I ask why?

It served its purpose, which was to prevent the denial of citizenship to blacks after the Civil War.

I can see no use for it now. I'm for scrapping it.

 

[tyr_13]

Do you mind if I ask why?

It served its purpose, which was to prevent the denial of citizenship to blacks after the Civil War.

I can see no use for it now. I'm for scrapping it.

I can't think of a better way to ensure citizenship fairly. It fits in with the nature of the country, one of plurality.

Really, this has been argued in other threads and it probably deserves it's own though.

 

[Piggy]

I can't think of a better way to ensure citizenship fairly. It fits in with the nature of the country, one of plurality.

Really, this has been argued in other threads and it probably deserves it's own though.

Ok, I was just curious.

I won't belabor the point except to say that it makes no sense to me. I see nothing inherently "fair" about making someone a citizen only because his mother's water broke while she was on US soil, and nothing in the "nature of the country" that supports such a notion.

If your parents are from Elbonia, then you're Elbonian.

I wouldn't expect to be a Mexican citizen if my mother had given birth while she was across the border shopping. (My dad was a Border Patrolman.) I would expect to be a US citizen.

So we disagree, but thanks for answering. I certainly cannot say that you are "wrong" and I am "right".

 

[Grizzly Adams]

How is that not enforcing federal law?

How is it enforcing federal law? No apprehensions, no prosecutions, no involvement of law enforcement personnel of any kind. It's just a wall.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No, that comes with the naturalization clause of Article I Section 8.

Uh, no. Article I, Section 8 details powers granted to Congress, not the executive.

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.)

Yes, Congress gets to determine immigration policy. Not the executive. Since Congress has made the determination that unauthorized border crossings are to be prohibited, the executive has no room to whine that his policy of not caring about that part of the law is being undermined because his policy is not given consideration under the constitutional framework we have instituted.

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.

The Law Enforcement Support Center (an arm of Immigration & Customs Enforcement) fielded more than 1.1 million status queries in fiscal 2010. Sounds like they can handle it.

This really is a federal decision.

And the decision has already been made: unauthorized border crossings are prohibited. This is no different than if a state were to mandate the installation of bullet-resistant glass at bank teller stations and the federal government were to step in and start crying about how it makes it harder to rob banks, even though robbing banks is prohibited under federal law.

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.

The state has every authority to protect the interests of its citizens, and if they determine an effective method of doing so is to make it harder to do something Congress has already prohibited, then there's no influence on federal law is there?

 

[Biscuit]

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

Try and understand that immigrants want work its business that take advantage of the illegal part.

These steps, though not complete and ready to be introduced today as policy, are far better than passing harassment laws. Unless of course you have a better idea?

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.

A policy that will allow foreign workers with skills and a desire to work in the United States legally. So that desperate people are not forced into the shadows and across borders on an illegal basis. Will it end all illegal immigration, no. Will it allow for some very skilled laborers to ply their craft in the U.S. legally on a free market, yes.

It is not a slave labor pool as you keep implying.

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?

Once again it is just one step. A guest worker program is going to help solve a lot of the social and humane issues involved wit this problem. Enforcing employment laws is going to help with the economic ones. Together they will help each others goals. This is not an end all be all solution, there is no magic word we can say to solve the problem. Despite whatever problems may still remain I am for this approach and against passing harassment laws.

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?

Why do you ask the same questions over and over again? Look up, I have answered this.

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?

Its possible those could methods could be used. I am interested in hearing some less authoritarian ideas, do you have any?

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.

That implication is not there at all. No where have I advocated for this or even made that connection. It is your own fallacy and nothing more. One last time - there is a demand for cheap labor and we we we need to ween our economy off of this. (new thought) We should try a guest worker program as one step towards solving our issues.

Of course there will be implications as there are now with our current policy of lip service to the problem and the harassment of the people. Our current approach does nothing to solve the problems we face. My ideas are not a magic bullet but at least they address some of the issues.

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.

Thank you. I have been self employed for the better part of 10 years, I think I got this.

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

Nope, you are jumping to conclusions and providing no solutions of your own.

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

Now thats a good question. I hate to say this but I don't know. Deportation seems to be the obvious one. I am for an amnesty program, with conditions, for our current friends.

What's the benefit for the US in this?

Its part of the process of solving the problem. What benefit to the U.S. are the harassment laws my state keeps passing. Maybe there is a greater cause than the U.S.?

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

Employment laws that are enforced.

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.

I am sorry that I do not have the full program 100% spelled out for you. I see you can only jump to conclusions that are ridiculous. Why did you not jump to the conclusion that this step is so obvious I must intend it?

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.

Ahh terrorism I believe we now call this "trax-ing"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6876380#post6876380

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.

And my point is that there are a lot of things we need to do to solve this problem in a sensible, workable, and humane way. Passing harassment laws does nothing to solve the problem of illegal immigration.

 

[Neally]

Passing harassment laws does nothing to solve the problem of illegal immigration.

I find it odd that you keep referring to the enforcement of immigration laws as "harassment". Do you consider the enforcement of all laws as harassment, or just some of them?