DOJ won't sue sanctuary cities

[joobz]

But the vast majority of them do not commit violent crimes or crimes other than being here illegally.

My point was simply a desire to avoid getting mired into semantic sidestreets. I think Pipeline audio's "criminal invader" argument is exactly the kind of thing I want to avoid.

I'm personally in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform that would address the issue of our need for labor (currently provided in large part by illegals).

I agree. In fact, I never opposed Bush's guest worker option. My only concern with the guest worker game is the generation of a second class citizen. Unfortunately, that is what we already have so I don't know if a guest worker would be an improving or a legitimization of a class system.

I would agree with this analogy if the Constitution specifically granted the federal government the authority to establish a uniform national policy to deal with drinking (but there isn't [ETA: and wasn't even during Prohibition]). Then, if Illinois passed a law reflecting their conflicting policy, the federal government would have a good case based on preemption.

I wasn't trying to make a perfect analogy only draw upon the similarities of having a large population engaging in needlessly defined illegal activities to the benefit of criminal organizations.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree. In fact, I never opposed Bush's guest worker option. My only concern with the guest worker game is the generation of a second class citizen. Unfortunately, that is what we already have so I don't know if a guest worker would be an improving or a legitimization of a class system.

I get your point, but I think it needs to be pointed out that a guest worker visa (or whatever the permit might be called) wouldn't confer citizenship, so they wouldn't be second class citizens (or citizens at all).

I think it would legitimize their presence here so that people wouldn't raise a hue and cry that they are illegal or criminal (in the absence of any other illegal activity). And it's just plain dishonest not to acknowledge (legally) our economic interdependence with migrant workers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wasn't trying to make a perfect analogy only draw upon the similarities of having a large population engaging in needlessly defined illegal activities to the benefit of criminal organizations.

I understand. I do think the only problem with the analogy goes right to the heart of the issue--why the federal government sued over the Arizona law but not over the sanctuary laws. The 18th Amendment specifically conferred a concurrent power of enforcement to U.S. Congress and the "several states".

Establishing an immigration policy is specifically conferred to Congress and not to the states. This is at the heart of the lawsuit.

So in a way, I think it was a great an analogy to underscore this point!

ETA: And to clarify a point I made earlier: if the sanctuary laws do actually block the federal government from prosecuting illegal aliens who commit other crimes, then I would agree that it's inconsistent of them to challenge the Arizona law and not to challenge the sanctuary laws. I suspect that's not the case.

 

[pipelineaudio]

An immigrant is someone who migrates somewhere. So both illegal aliens and legal aliens are immigrants. The Arizona law does indeed have to do with immigration. It even makes it a state misdemeanor to be in Arizona illegally.

The law says absolutely nothing about invaders. A foreign invasion would be an act of war. You're playing fast and loose with the language.

Sexual intercourse is the act of sticking a penis in a vagina, therefore rape is sexual intercourse. You're playing fast and loose with the language

 

[joobz]

Sexual intercourse is the act of sticking a penis in a vagina, therefore rape is sexual intercourse. You're playing fast and loose with the language

You are merely only repeating your logic in the original post.

what is the difference between a "foreign invader" and an "illegal Immigrant"?

 

[Neally]

While reasonable minds can disagree on whether or not this is the best policy, critics of the federal government's policy simply deny that there is a policy or that the federal government is making any efforts at enforcement (even though federal enforcement as measured in arrests, deportations and the like is at record levels).

I don't know who these "critics" are that you keep repeating claim the feds aren't making any effort at enforcement. Many posts here have stated that the enforcement isn't enough. And if the claim is that they can't handle the volume of illegals that they expect AZ will refer to them, then they should state it clearly and move forward with changing the law to one that they can and will enforce fully.

 

[jimbob]

You are merely only repeating your logic in the original post.

what is the difference between a "foreign invader" and an "illegal Immigrant"?

The Mongol Horde swept over the steppes of Asia, whilst illegal immigrants crawled through ditches?

 

[pipelineaudio]

You are merely only repeating your logic in the original post.

what is the difference between a "foreign invader" and an "illegal Immigrant"?

What is the difference between "sexual contact" and "rape"?

People use the word "immigrant" in a positively stigmatizing way in order to conflate criminals with positive people

 

[joobz]

What is the difference between "sexual contact" and "rape"?

People use the word "immigrant" in a positively stigmatizing way in order to conflate criminals with positive people

Why do you keep avoiding the question
What is the difference between:
foreign invader
and
illegal immigrant?

 

[Dancing David]

The Arizona law has absolutely nothing to do with anti-immigration groups, or even immigration. It has to do with criminal invaders. I wish people would stop throwing these red herrings in

This post really has nothing to do with Pipelineaudio


But the funny thing about this, and I am very serious:

What about criminal speeders? I wish people cared more about the fact that people are criminals everyday, 20-40 MPH over the speed limits in residential zones, 'rolling stops', honking at pedestrians in the cross walks, tail gating, changing lanes like maniacs, speeding at goddess knows what over the speed limit, talking on their god damn cel-phones, running red lights, threatening me, my family and loved ones all the time everyday. I mean really these stupid *********** jerks are a threat to all of us on the road, But when the police threaten a crack down or the legislature tries to raise the fines and penalties, do people support them? Nooooooooooo, they do not they complain about 'how they should be out catching real criminals', 'the prisons are for real criminals' 'I don't belong there.' These ******* morons are a greater threat to my personal security and a bigger criminal threat than any freaking illegal aliens. But call them criminals, hell no.

The opinions in the above rant are not the view of the JREF or its subsidiaries or employees, it is also a parody and send up of a very serious issue, criminal drivers who kill people, maim people and threaten us all every day.

Why I bet they cost us all more in insurance and health care than those people who come here to work.

 

[rwguinn]

This post really has nothing to do with Pipelineaudio


But the funny thing about this, and I am very serious:

What about criminal speeders? I wish people cared more about the fact that people are criminals everyday, 20-40 MPH over the speed limits in residential zones, 'rolling stops', honking at pedestrians in the cross walks, tail gating, changing lanes like maniacs, speeding at goddess knows what over the speed limit, talking on their god damn cel-phones, running red lights, threatening me, my family and loved ones all the time everyday. I mean really these stupid *********** jerks are a threat to all of us on the road, But when the police threaten a crack down or the legislature tries to raise the fines and penalties, do people support them? Nooooooooooo, they do not they complain about 'how they should be out catching real criminals', 'the prisons are for real criminals' 'I don't belong there.' These ******* morons are a greater threat to my personal security and a bigger criminal threat than any freaking illegal aliens. But call them criminals, hell no.

The opinions in the above rant are not the view of the JREF or its subsidiaries or employees, it is also a parody and send up of a very serious issue, criminal drivers who kill people, maim people and threaten us all every day.

Why I bet they cost us all more in insurance and health care than those people who come here to work.

So, when the cops set up and catch these criminals, does the ACLU, La Raza, NAACP, and Democratic Party all band together and sue the cops? Accuse them of "Profiling" people who just happen to own a car? Demand the criminals be set free?

Didn't think so...

 

[pipelineaudio]

So, when the cops set up and catch these criminals, does the ACLU, La Raza, NAACP, and Democratic Party all band together and sue the cops? Accuse them of "Profiling" people who just happen to own a car? Demand the criminals be set free?

Didn't think so...

Exactly

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Back to the issue in the OP, if the feds were to sue any lower level of government over "sanctuary" status, they would almost certainly fail. Interestingly, the reason why originates in a Supreme Court case conservatives would generally praise, which dealt with the federal government compelling local chiefs of police to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers. There was no financial incentive or threat of losing funding for anything. It was a "you must do this because we say so." Some locality sued over the mandate, and the case came before the US Supreme Court as Printz v. United States. USSC ruled the tenth amendment prohibited the federal government from imposing such a mandate in this fashion (as opposed to a threat of lost funding, making the checks "voluntary") and invalidated it.

Basically, the argument was that the Constitution directs the President to carry out the laws enacted by Congress, through his appointed department heads and on down through the executive branch. State and local governments are not part of the federal executive branch and therefore cannot be compelled to the service of that branch.

Any suit against a city on the grounds that it isn't checking on immigration status would fail under a Printz evaluation. (Of course, if the issue were active obstruction or harboring, the case would certainly be less clear -- but here we're just talking about localities that decline to check on immigration status.)

 

[pipelineaudio]

Why do you keep avoiding the question
What is the difference between:
foreign invader
and
illegal immigrant?

No difference in factual-ness HUGE difference in perception

Same as we don't call a "rapist" a "willing sexual participant"

They may be factual as far as it goes, but there is a huge difference in how we percieve these things

We don't call "bank robbers" "undocumented withdrawlists"

 

[jimbob]

This post really has nothing to do with Pipelineaudio


But the funny thing about this, and I am very serious:

What about criminal speeders? I wish people cared more about the fact that people are criminals everyday, 20-40 MPH over the speed limits in residential zones, 'rolling stops', honking at pedestrians in the cross walks, tail gating, changing lanes like maniacs, speeding at goddess knows what over the speed limit, talking on their god damn cel-phones, running red lights, threatening me, my family and loved ones all the time everyday. I mean really these stupid *********** jerks are a threat to all of us on the road, But when the police threaten a crack down or the legislature tries to raise the fines and penalties, do people support them? Nooooooooooo, they do not they complain about 'how they should be out catching real criminals', 'the prisons are for real criminals' 'I don't belong there.' These ******* morons are a greater threat to my personal security and a bigger criminal threat than any freaking illegal aliens. But call them criminals, hell no.

The opinions in the above rant are not the view of the JREF or its subsidiaries or employees, it is also a parody and send up of a very serious issue, criminal drivers who kill people, maim people and threaten us all every day.

Why I bet they cost us all more in insurance and health care than those people who come here to work.

So, when the cops set up and catch these criminals, does the ACLU, La Raza, NAACP, and Democratic Party all band together and sue the cops? Accuse them of "Profiling" people who just happen to own a car? Demand the criminals be set free?

Didn't think so...

There is a difference. If a an obviously speeding car drives past, the driver is obviously breaking the law. If the car goes through a red light the same is true. The police only need to stop offenders.



If an illegal immigrant walks past that person isn't obviously an illegal immigrant. So the police could stop everybody and ask for proof of ID, which would be impractical, or they target those they think "look" like illegal immigrants. This would probably mean that they target people who look Hispanic and poor.


In the UK, the police sometimes carry out anti drink-driving campaigns, which sometimes include random breath tests. This includes stopping everyone going past the checkpoint. There is no discrimination about race in this setup. Several prominent black people (in the UK) have complained in the past that the police did stop them for driving expensive cars, which the police officers assumed were too expensive for a black person to afford and was thus claimed as "sufficient" justification for stopping them on suspicion of theft. This was discrimination.


Still, as Hispanics only make up 30% of Arizona citizens I suppose it depends whether you think that exposing up to 30% of your lawful citizens to being stopped by police on the basis of skin colour is a good thing. Even if it was only 5% it would be wrong, but 30% is just insane.


It's all gone a bit Constable Savage

 

[pipelineaudio]

Still, as Hispanics only make up 30% of Arizona citizens I suppose it depends whether you think that exposing up to 30% of your lawful citizens to being stopped by police on the basis of skin colour is a good thing. Even if it was only 5% it would be wrong, but 30% is just insane.

What color are hispanics?

 

[jimbob]

Darker skin than mine, for example.

"Skin colour" was shorthand, "looks*" might have been a better choice of words. Or are you saying that the Arizona police idea of what an illegal immigrant** looks like won't include "looking Hispanic"?

Even more to the point, are you claiming that Hispanic citizens won't get stopped more frequently than those of more obvious northern European ancestry.

Most illegal immigrants will be Hispanic, as will 30% of legal citizens.



*I use this rather than "race" because this is what it would be judged on.

**They are immigrants who have entered the country illegally. "Foreign Invaders" implies violence. They don't force anyone from their homes. "Foreign" is just tautological in this situation. I suppose the West was won by non-Foreign Invaders.

 

[joobz]

No difference in factual-ness HUGE difference in perception

Ok. so, you are merely playing a semantic game. This just supports my original post.
Illegal is illegal.
illegal immigrant is illegal.

Same as we don't call a "rapist" a "willing sexual participant"

We do call rapists
sex offenders.

They may be factual as far as it goes, but there is a huge difference in how we percieve these things

We don't call "bank robbers" "undocumented withdrawlists"

no, but we call it grand larceny.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sexual intercourse is the act of sticking a penis in a vagina, therefore rape is sexual intercourse. You're playing fast and loose with the language

When did I say anything about rape or sexual intercourse?

You claimed that the Arizona law was not about immigration, but only addresses "illegal invaders". Your claim is false.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know who these "critics" are that you keep repeating claim the feds aren't making any effort at enforcement. Many posts here have stated that the enforcement isn't enough.

If you like, I could go through several of these threads and give you quotes where the claim was made that the federal government does not enforce immigration laws. (One person even said that if they're not going to enforce their own laws, that they should repeal the immigration laws. This is not consistent with someone making a claim that what they're doing isn't enough.)

In most cases, when I pointed out that this is a false statement, the person making the claim backpedaled to say that they meant they weren't doing enough.

My point is that "enough" is a matter of opinion, but saying the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws is a statement of fact--a false one! There is a very big difference.

People can have different opinions on what is the most effective use of finite resources to enforce immigration laws. But that's not what they're saying. (Really--do you want me to give you some quotes from here in the JREF and from opinion pieces and editorials elsewhere?)