DOJ won't sue sanctuary cities

[Neally]

I didn't make that statement. I said that if you don't want to reallocate resources (that is, if the policy being promoted by Arizona is followed and you don't also take resources away from the federal policy), then you will have to raise taxes or increase deficit spending.

Raise taxes or increase deficit spending are not the only choices. You ARE saying those are the only alternatives and I have showed they are not. You are wrong and can't own up to admitting it.

Anyway, it sounds like you admit that making these budget decisions is something that can only be done at the federal level. Do you think Arizona has the authority to force the federal government to re-allocate resources?

The federal government has an obligation to fully enforce the laws on the books or change the laws. They are currently choosing not to fully enforce the law and claim this is part of their immigration "policy" that the states have no right to have influence over. This is a bogus claim IMO.

As I've said, you're free as an individual to disagree with the federal policy, and there are many things you can do to try to change it. But a state is not allowed to preempt federal policyy (sic) by establishing a policy that undermines the federal policy.

We will see if the courts agree that choosing not to fully enforce the federal laws can be considered a "policy" as defined in the constitution.

But even if Arizona had a better policy, they still lack the constitutional authority to establish that policy if it undermines or conflicts with the federal policy.

And back we are to the beginning. Since the AZ law doesn't conflict or undermine federal law, there are no constitutional authority issues.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Raise taxes or increase deficit spending are not the only choices. You ARE saying those are the only alternatives and I have showed they are not. You are wrong and can't own up to admitting it.

Bull. (Yet again.)

You keep claiming that I said those are the only two options, but that still doesn't make it true. In fact, the point I was making was that it's most likely to force the federal government to take resources away from pursuit of their policy.

ETA: If Arizona begins turning over hundreds of thousands of suspected illegals, it would swamp the resources of federal immigration enforcement and force them to abandon their own policy. The only way for this not to happen, would be to get virtually unlimited resources from somewhere. Arizona doesn't have the authority to force Congress to change its budget to accommodate Arizona's policy of immigration enforcement. This is one way the Arizona law would undermine the federal policy.

I find it curious that people who support the Arizona law are often those who are opposed to big federal government. To get additional resources (funding) for infinite enforcement of immigration (something that's not really possible), you would need to raise taxes or increase deficit spending. I realize you could offset these cost increases by cutting other government spending, but you can't simply re-allocate funds (that's now how federal budgets work). At any rate, Arizona lacks the authority to force Congress to change the federal budget.

I think maybe you lost track of how this particular part of the discussion arose.

The federal government has an obligation to fully enforce the laws on the books or change the laws.

There is no such legal principle. In fact, as I've been saying over and over, there is no such thing as "full enforcement" of any criminal law.

They are currently choosing not to fully enforce the law and claim this is part of their immigration "policy" that the states have no right to have influence over. This is a bogus claim IMO.

Well your opinion is just wrong. I've pointed out several times that federal enforcement of immigration laws is at an all time record high. I've also pointed out several time that this business of "fully enforce" or "limited enforcement" is nonsense, since the exact same criticism could be made of ANY enforcement policy (including the one Arizona is putting forth--in fact, the Arizona policy would attempt to deport a great many illegal aliens who have committed no other crimes at the cost of NOT deporting some illegal aliens who are very dangerous violent criminals).

I've also pointed out that the federal policy also balances enforcement against other considerations.

We will see if the courts agree that choosing not to fully enforce the federal laws can be considered a "policy" as defined in the constitution.

And here you are voicing again the false idea that the federal government is not fully enforcing federal laws. That's simply not true. (Or if you want to spin "fully enforce" in some way that it's true, then it's impossible for anyone to "fully enforce" any criminal law, and the criticism has no validity whatsoever.)

And back we are to the beginning. Since the AZ law doesn't conflict or undermine federal law, there are no constitutional authority issues.

Just saying there is no conflict and that the Arizona law doesn't establish a policy that undermines federal policy doesn't make it so. I have outlined the arguments the federal government is making. I haven't see anyone on this thread refute them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

BTW, I notice you keep raising flawed arguments and then dropping most of them when I refute them.

So isn't it you that doesn't want to admit being wrong?

At one point you claimed that the authority vested in the Congress by the U.S. Constitution to establish a uniform national policy didn't pertain to dealing with illegal aliens. Twice I've asked you if it follows, therefore, that states have the authority to deport illegal aliens. If your ultra narrow (and not very logical) definition of the naturalization authority were true, then it would follow that states could do deportations.

 

[Neally]

You keep claiming that I said those are the only two options, but that still doesn't make it true. In fact, the point I was making was that it's most likely to force the federal government to take resources away from pursuit of their policy.

As I point out your flawed statements, they magically change. Yet even with the change, you are still wrong. Higher taxes, deficit spending, taking resources from other immigration enforcement are not the only options.

I realize you could offset these cost increases by cutting other government spending, but you can't simply re-allocate funds (that's now how federal budgets work).

Finally, you admit my point. Now as far as reallocating resources, how it is done and how fast, is irrelevant to my point and the fact that you overlooked it.

At one point you claimed that the authority vested in the Congress by the U.S. Constitution to establish a uniform national policy didn't pertain to dealing with illegal aliens. Twice I've asked you if it follows, therefore, that states have the authority to deport illegal aliens. If your ultra narrow (and not very logical) definition of the naturalization authority were true, then it would follow that states could do deportations.

It's not "my" definition of naturalization, it's THE definition naturalization:

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.

You seem to be unable to grasp the distinction between "naturalization" and "immigration". The AZ has nothing to do with naturalization or the federal policy of it. You know very well that the AZ law has nothing to do with deporting illegals nor do states have the the authority to do so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As I point out your flawed statements, they magically change. Yet even with the change, you are still wrong. Higher taxes, deficit spending, taking resources from other immigration enforcement are not the only options.

Yes they are. You are wrong in saying that the federal government can re-allocate money willy-nilly. Congress sets the budget. You can't, for example, take money from the Transportation Department to pay for immigration enforcement. You can, in subsequent years, create a new budget that increases money available for immigration enforcement and decreases money for the Transportation Department.

And the larger point is, even if you could do what you imagine, it certainly wouldn't be a state's authority to force the federal government to do that.

So, in the real world, if states began turning over huge numbers of suspected illegal aliens who have committed no other crimes, they would be forcing the federal government to change its policy.

Finally, you admit my point.

What are you talking about?

Now as far as reallocating resources, how it is done and how fast, is irrelevant to my point and the fact that you overlooked it.

Nonsense. You cannot re-allocate resources at all. (See above.) And if you're calling changes in a subsequent year's budget "reallocation", the timing does indeed matter. If Arizona turns over a hundred thousand or so suspected illegals this year, it would swamp the federal government's ability to handle them (and to pursue the policy the federal government has in place of going after violent criminals first, and balancing enforcement with concerns of humanitarian issues and foreign relations).

And if it remained in place, it would force the federal government to pass a budget in subsequent years that spends more money on immigration resources. (And that money has to come from somewhere--the point you seem to ignore.)

Either way, the point is that states do not have the authority to force the federal government either to change their policy or to change the federal budget in subsequent years.

It's not "my" definition of naturalization, it's THE definition naturalization:You seem to be unable to grasp the distinction between "naturalization" and "immigration".

Do tell.

I assure you, you're dead wrong. And this is why you continue to duck the question I've asked a couple of times now: if your narrow definition of the naturalization authority of the federal government were true, then do states have the authority to deport illegals?

[ETA: Note well: I'm not asking whether or not the Arizona law in question attempts to take that authority. Even the first time I asked this question, I noted that Arizona isn't even attempting this absurd an argument, that the naturalization authority does not include authority over immigration policy in general.]

The AZ has nothing to do with naturalization or the federal policy of it. You know very well that the AZ law has nothing to do with deporting illegals nor do states have the the authority to do so.

I never claimed the Arizona law has anything to do with deporting illegals. I'm asking you about this ultra narrow definition of the naturalization authority (the one that is different and distinct from the authority to regulate immigration and to establish policy wrt to enforcement of immigration laws).

I'm trying to see if you have any clue about how a consistent application of that narrow definition might look.

Do states have the authority to issue visas? (After all, visas are granted to people who have no intention of becoming U.S. citizens.) What about "green cards"? Those are given to permanent residents giving them permission to work in the U.S. whether or not they ever plan to become citizens.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you think is and is not in the federal government's naturalization authority?

How is it that our treatment of aliens (legal or illegal) is NOT part of the naturalization authority, but deportation is? How do you have an authority to grant legal immigration and naturalization and NOT have an authority to keep others out?

I've also shown you case law from way back that agrees that in this context, the naturalization authority given to Congress includes treatment of aliens--legal and illegal.

I promise you, you're 100% certainly wrong on this point, and you will not even hear Arizona making this argument because it's so very absurd.

What you are mostly likely to hear from Arizona is that they are not establishing an immigration policy (despite the fact that the text of the law itself makes that claim and many of Brewer's public statements have said as much) and that their law doesn't conflict with federal law (even though it differs markedly from federal law authorizing state police to arrest illegals for being illegal only if they have a prior felony conviction and deportation and only after getting confirmation from federal authorities).

They may even argue that federal law doesn't occupy the field and that the naturalization authority is a concurrent one--or some variation of this argument, such as the argument that authorization of state police to arrest illegals for immigration violations alone doesn't come from the federal government or from federal laws.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The AZ has nothing to do with naturalization or the federal policy of it. You know very well that the AZ law has nothing to do with deporting illegals nor do states have the the authority to do so.

Does deporting illegals (or issuing travel visas, green cards or j-visas for foreign students) have anything to do with the naturalization authority?

If not, then why don't the states have authority to deport illegals (or issue visas or green cards)?

If so, then why doesn't enforcement of immigration laws in general also fall under the naturalization law?

The place you are attempting to draw the line has no legal or logical basis.

ETA: I'm trying to think of an analogy, but since states are so different from the federal government, they're all flawed. This one comes closest: where you're drawing the line would be analogous to saying that states have the authority to issue driver's licenses to those who qualify, but not to deny driver's licenses to those who do not (or not to to suspend or revoke them). There's no way the federal government can have the authority to set a uniform national policy on naturalization and lack authority to set a uniform policy over immigration and treatment of aliens in general.

 

[Neally]

Yes they are. You are wrong in saying that the federal government can re-allocate money willy-nilly. Congress sets the budget. You can't, for example, take money from the Transportation Department to pay for immigration enforcement. You can, in subsequent years, create a new budget that increases money available for immigration enforcement and decreases money for the Transportation Department.

I've already given multiple examples of how the Federal government could do greater enforcement of immigration laws without deficit spending, higher taxes, or reducing other enforcement policies. You are wrong in claiming those are the only options.

What are you talking about?

First you claimed that the only way to increase enforcement was to increase taxes or deficit spend. Then you included reducing enforcement in other areas. Finally you admitted, "I realize you could offset these cost increases by cutting other government spending".

Nonsense. You cannot re-allocate resources at all. (See above.) And if you're calling changes in a subsequent year's budget "reallocation", the timing does indeed matter.

POTUS could take a 2% reduction in the forces in Afghanistan and deploy them to the border to increase enforcement, in addition to all the other examples I gave.

And this is why you continue to duck the question I've asked a couple of times now: if your narrow definition of the naturalization authority of the federal government were true, then do states have the authority to deport illegals?

Your question doesn't even make sense. Naturalization has to do with the process of gaining citizenship. That has nothing to do with deporting illegals which falls under the policies of immigration. The constitution and acts of congress makes it clear that both are the authority of the federal government. Both have no bearing on the AZ law.

How is it that our treatment of aliens (legal or illegal) is NOT part of the naturalization authority, but deportation is? How do you have an authority to grant legal immigration and naturalization and NOT have an authority to keep others out?

Again your line of questioning doesn't make sense. Once again, immigration covers entering, staying, and leaving the country including deportation. Naturalization covers the process of becoming a citizen. Both have no bearing on the AZ law.

Does deporting illegals (or issuing travel visas, green cards or j-visas for foreign students) have anything to do with the naturalization authority?

Deportation is part of the immigration laws. "Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act." Both have no bearing on the AZ law.

If not, then why don't the states have authority to deport illegals (or issue visas or green cards)?

What part of "federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters" do you not understand? This has no bearing on the AZ law.

The place you are attempting to draw the line has no legal or logical basis.

Except that it does.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've already given multiple examples of how the Federal government could do greater enforcement of immigration laws without deficit spending, higher taxes, or reducing other enforcement policies.

No you haven't. You've merely made the false claim that they can re-allocate funding from other spending programs. Again, that's now how the federal budget works.

Yes, Congress can change the budget in subsequent years, but that doesn't change the fact that if Arizona turns over a great many suspected illegals, it will swamp the system. Also, even if Congress changes the budget to accommodate Arizona's policy, Arizona doesn't have the authority to force Congress to do this.

First you claimed that the only way to increase enforcement was to increase taxes or deficit spend.

No. You're wrong. First I repeated the point made in the federal government's lawsuit, that Arizona's policy undermines and conflicts with the policy of the federal government. You made the claim that the federal policy is one of limited enforcement. I'm trying hard to explain to you that since there is no such thing as infinite enforcement, all policies can be called limited.

You just want to go on about your fantasy world where resources are limitless, and the federal government can spend all they want on enforcement without those funds coming from somewhere else or increasing the deficit. Yes, those are the only 2 options. You can create debt or get money from somewhere else (changing the budget or raising new revenue).

Again, most critics of the federal government policy are also people who are not in favor of big government, but this "limited enforcement" argument suggests that they're in favor of infinitely big government! Or--more likely-- that they're just spouting meaningless rhetoric they haven't carefully thought out.

POTUS could take a 2% reduction in the forces in Afghanistan and deploy them to the border to increase enforcement, in addition to all the other examples I gave.

Yes he could. The governor and legislature of Arizona cannot.
[ETA: And guess where the funding for those forces comes from? It's emergency deficit spending. Nothing is free.]

[ETA: Also, sending troops to the border might not fit in with the federal government's foreign relations policies. And, perhaps most importantly, it would not resolve the problem caused by Arizona suddenly turning over large numbers of suspected illegals who have committed no other crimes. That would still swamp the system, and redeploying the military won't change that. It would still effectively dictate that the federal government abandon its policy and pursue Arizona's policy.]

As you illustrate here, it would be a trade off. There would be a large cost to doing this, and it would still be "limited enforcement". And the states do not have the authority to make these kinds of decisions.

Your question doesn't even make sense.

Yes it does. You claim the naturalization authority doesn't have anything to do with immigration or the enforcement of immigration laws. You're wrong, but I'm trying to figure out where you even draw the line.

Naturalization has to do with the process of gaining citizenship. That has nothing to do with deporting illegals which falls under the policies of immigration. The constitution and acts of congress makes it clear that both are the authority of the federal government. Both have no bearing on the AZ law.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So you now concede that the federal government has the authority to set national immigration policy. Does this extend to policies regarding the enforcement of immigration laws?

It pertains to the Arizona law, because the Arizona law establishes an immigration policy in the state that conflicts with and undermines the policy of the federal government. It even says so in the law, and Brewer has made it clear that her intent is to force the federal government to change its policy.

Again your line of questioning doesn't make sense. Once again, immigration covers entering, staying, and leaving the country including deportation. Naturalization covers the process of becoming a citizen. Both have no bearing on the AZ law.

How absurd. Have you read the Arizona law? It makes it a state misdemeanor to be in the state illegally. It establishes laws regarding employment of illegal aliens. It establishes new police policies regarding the treatment of suspected illegals.

Except that it does.

First, your link doesn't support your case. (I have shown you Supreme Court decisions that make it clear that the federal government has the authority to establish policy wrt the enforcement of immigration laws. Your whole naturalization-doesn't-include-immigration argument is wrong.

At any rate, apparently you are changing your argument. Earlier, I thought you were claiming that the federal government does not have authority to establish a national policy on immigration.

So, now that you concede that the federal government has this authority, do you concede that the states do not have the authority to pass laws that establish a policy that conflicts with or undermines the federal policy?

Do you concede that the states don't have the authority to pass laws that force the federal government to change its policy? (Effectively letting the states establish policy?)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So what about your claim that the federal policy is to deport only felons?

Is that another point you're ready to concede is utterly wrong?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We will see if the courts agree that choosing not to fully enforce the federal laws can be considered a "policy" as defined in the constitution.

I don't think the court will even consider this question.

I don't think Arizona is even questioning that there is a federal policy. (And again, any policy can be called "limited" or "not fully enforcing" the laws, since infinite or unlimited enforcement is neither possible nor desirable for the reasons I have already explained.)

The courts will more likely address the question of whether or not the Arizona law is the establishment of a policy in Arizona that undermines or conflicts with federal policy.

I notice you haven't responded at all to the point that the federal policy also balances enforcement with other considerations--especially humanitarian concerns (the complaint even points out that there are cases where federal authorities are aware of specific undocumented aliens they choose not to deport--and sometimes those undocumented aliens are simply awaiting paperwork to go through that would make their presence legal) and issues of foreign relations.

Do you recognize that Arizona's policy of "attrition through enforcement" fails to take those things into account at all?

 

[Neally]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So you now concede that the federal government has the authority to set national immigration policy.

I've never said otherwise. I've never claimed states have the authority to do so. I have no idea why you are coming up with this or dragging it out so much. I agree with the AZ defense that the bill does not preempt federal immigration authority. The AZ law doesn't not establish immigration policy and has nothing to do with naturalization. As I've said many times, if the result of the law is that the federal government has to do more work at enforcing the laws on the books, that does not fall under the definition of policy that is reserved to the the federal government.

It pertains to the Arizona law, because the Arizona law establishes an immigration policy in the state that conflicts with and undermines the policy of the federal government.

That is the claim of the federal government which you agree with. AZ claims it does not, and I agree with their defense.

Brewer has made it clear that her intent is to force the federal government to change its policy.

The intent is to get the federal government to better enforce the laws on the books.

First, your link doesn't support your case. (I have shown you Supreme Court decisions that make it clear that the federal government has the authority to establish policy wrt the enforcement of immigration laws. Your whole naturalization-doesn't-include-immigration argument is wrong.

What part of "Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen" do you not understand? Where in the AZ law is there any mention or is there any impact on naturalization?

At any rate, apparently you are changing your argument. Earlier, I thought you were claiming that the federal government does not have authority to establish a national policy on immigration.

I'm not changing my argument. I have never claimed that the federal government does not have authority to establish a national policy on immigration.

So, now that you concede that the federal government has this authority, do you concede that the states do not have the authority to pass laws that establish a policy that conflicts with or undermines the federal policy?

I have never claimed otherwise. But again, I agree with the AZ defense that the law does not conflict or undermine the federal policy. The court will make the decision, not you or me.

So what about your claim that the federal policy is to deport only felons?

The federal government is limiting enforcement not only to felons, but the point is, and the reason for passing the law, is that the illegal invasion has not been controlled sufficiently.

I notice you haven't responded at all to the point that the federal policy also balances enforcement with other considerations--especially humanitarian concerns. Do you recognize that Arizona's policy of "attrition through enforcement" fails to take those things into account at all?

What specific "humanitarian concerns" are you referring to?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The AZ law doesn't not establish immigration policy and has nothing to do with naturalization.

Ignoring your moot point about naturalization not having anything to do with immigration, what do you make of the fact that the text of the law itself claims to establish a policy of "attrition through enforcement"?

Also what do you make of public statements Brewer (and other supporters) have made that express their desire to change federal policy?

As I've said many times, if the result of the law is that the federal government has to do more work at enforcing the laws on the books, that does not fall under the definition of policy that is reserved to the the federal government.

More work isn't the issue. The issue is that it would force the federal government to change policy and process a large number of illegal aliens who have not committed crimes (and some that the federal government would not choose to deport for humanitarian reasons) rather than pursue their own policy.

The intent is to get the federal government to better enforce the laws on the books.

Again, "better" is an opinion--that is, a matter of policy. Forcing the federal government to change its policy is indeed undermining the federal policy.

What part of "Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen" do you not understand? Where in the AZ law is there any mention or is there any impact on naturalization?

You still don't get this do you?

Can a state have authority to grant driver's licenses but not the authority to not grant them or to revoke them? Deportation and treatment of aliens is indeed part of the federal government's naturalization authority. (If you interpret the Constitution such that "policy" means only "requirements" you are misinterpreting it.)

I quoted Justice Frankfurters very strong language pointing out that the fact that this authority rests solely with the federal government. Since you don't disagree, your argument is moot.

I have never claimed otherwise. But again, I agree with the AZ defense that the law does not conflict or undermine the federal policy.

OK--so you've asserted a position. I've given several lines of argumentation that show how the laws are in conflict and that the policy established by the Arizona law would indeed undermine the policy of the federal government. Is your response merely to re-assert your position?

The court will make the decision, not you or me.

Of course. And you're entirely free not to participate in this forum discussion. But if you do, and all you want to do is assert a position without defending it, don't expect to be left alone.

The federal government is limiting enforcement not only to felons, but the point is, and the reason for passing the law, is that the illegal invasion has not been controlled sufficiently.

And "sufficiently" is strictly a matter of policy. So again, all you're saying here is that you want the federal government to change its policy.

(And for the record, I see that you now concede that the federal government does not limit its enforcement to felons as you said earlier.)

In case you still haven't looked at the links I've posted about record levels of enforcement of immigration laws, here's another one with more recent statistics:

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/218/
(Since you've taken this thread off the topic of the sanctuary laws and made it a general discussion of the Arizona law and the federal lawsuit, I'm basically making very similar posts in both of these threads.)

What specific "humanitarian concerns" are you referring to?

The complaint gives some examples. For example, someone who fled a natural disaster, someone who is seeking asylum (has a legitimate fear of unfair persecution if they return)--sometimes not splitting families is a concern, sometimes a person who is illegal can petition to become legal and the federal government might be aware of their illegal presence here and has no interest in deporting them while documents are being prepared. (On that last point, I have some experience with the INS bureaucracy, and things can move very slowly indeed.)

As for foreign relations, even the perception of the possibility of mistreatment of tourists and other legal guests can cause international tensions that might not be worth whatever good this measure might accomplish.

Again, the Arizona policy is strictly "attrition through enforcement". The fact that the Arizona law doesn't even consider these other concerns that the federal government balances against enforcement highlights the very reason immigration policy is the domain of the federal government and not the states.