Obama administration to sue Arizona.

[Wolrab]

No, and no.

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

I would have to say it has everything to do with the lawsuit. A trooper in upstate NY pulls over a man for driving erratically. When the perp doesn't provide a drivers license or any other valid ID, the trooper checked into the guys status and informed the feds. This is exactly what the Arizona law demands and the law is considered racist.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would have to say it has everything to do with the lawsuit. A trooper in upstate NY pulls over a man for driving erratically. When the perp doesn't provide a drivers license or any other valid ID, the trooper checked into the guys status and informed the feds. This is exactly what the Arizona law demands and the law is considered racist.

I suggest you re-read the federal government's complaint. I think you have a distorted idea of what it's about.

By the way, state troopers can not determine a person's immigration status. Only federal authorities can do that, so your account of this NY anecdote isn't quite right. Even so, the federal government has long encouraged and cooperated with state and local police wrt immigration enforcement. That's not something that was just invented by the Arizona law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Yep. Federal enforcement of immigration laws in recent years (as measured by arrests, deportations, and the like) is at record levels. This is why it bugs me so much to hear people say that Arizona has to do this because the federal government isn't enforcing its laws.*

Also, while you're correct that part of the federal policy is to focus on violent criminals, gang activity and so on, their policy also balances enforcement with other concerns: notably humanitarian concerns, concerns over the treatment of tourists and other visitors, and foreign policy.

Further, there are circumstances where the federal government is aware of illegals present in the U.S. without documents and have chosen to let them remain (while, for example, a visa for one of the special hardship cases or other humanitarian concerns is being prepared). The Arizona law doesn't take this sort of thing into consideration at all.

The problem is, states don't have the authority to make these kind of policy decisions, and this law does indeed establish a policy. It even says so right in the law itself. Also, public statements Brewer has made, make it clear that that was the intention. She very much wants to force the fed to change its policy.

*ETA: Another example from this very thread:

Sorry man but the narritive [sic] has been set.Only knuckle dragging Klansmen are against illegal immigration and any efforts to curb it.

Of course the real debate is not about "any efforts to curb" illegal immigration.

The federal government does in fact enforce immigration laws, and enforcement is at record high levels. The legal debate is not over "any enforcement" vs. no enforcement. I don't think it's properly even over "enough enforcement". It's really about the policy. And the federal government has a policy that takes into account many national interests that a state cannot address--and which the Arizona law doesn't even consider. That's why immigration and foreign relations are the domain of the federal government.

I think the federal government has a strong case.

 

[bynmdsue]

It was a joke.

But do you think Juan Hernandez is happy with the record levels of enforcement?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It was a joke.

I realize that, but it was a merely a sarcastic way of framing the idea that without the Arizona law there aren't "any efforts" to curb illegal immigration.

And that idea is completely false.

 

[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?

Have I missed your reply to these questions? (Especially that first one.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ah, I see you attempted to answer the last couple:

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

This is factually not true. The federal government attributes its record level of enforcements (measured by arrests and deportations) to their policy of going after these very dangerous illegals--the ones who have committed violent felonies, crimes involved with drugs and gang activity. Your assertion that these people are "let go" and that they are not deported is false.

In case you've missed the other links I've posted that show these statistics, here's another:
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/218/

Your evidence that the federal government does not deport illegals convicted of violent crimes?

Or do you perhaps mean that they don't do it "enough"? (Even though what you said is that the federal government does not deport them but lets them go--a flagrantly false statement of fact rather than an opinion or value judgment.) If so, how much is "enough"? Again, enforcement is at record high levels, and no matter what policy you pursue, infinite enforcement is not possible. (And even if it were possible, it's not the authority of the states to dictate that the federal government should pursue that policy rather than the one established by federal authorities.)

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.

There are several bogus arguments here.

We all benefit from public education of everyone who lives in our country. Indeed, that's why people with no children still have to pay for public education through their taxes.

And I'm not sure how you even mean that illegal immigration hurts you as someone who works in food service or construction. Are you claiming that illegal immigration is the cause of high unemployment or low pay rates?

These other examples you give are not at all unique to illegal aliens. In fact, since you can't possibly know the immigration status of the "hit and splits", it's absurd for you to argue that this is harm done to you by illegal immigration.

And believe it or not, there are more U.S. citizens without health insurance than there are illegal aliens (with or without insurance).

As a derail on that last point: I assume you are consistent in this concern about who pays for the healthcare of the uninsured and you therefore supported the Healthcare Affordabilty Act? I also assume that you were opposed to excluding illegal immigrants from those measures (requiring that they too have to have coverage and pay at least something into the system)?
I'm rather certain you held the opposite positions, which are of course inconsistent with your concern about the costs of providing healthcare to the uninsured.

And there's still the other questions: Do you disagree with my assertion that illegals who commit violent crimes are more harmful than illegal immigrants who commit no other crimes?

Do you think it makes more sense to spend limited resources going after the most harmful illegals?

And I haven't even pointed out to you the other issues involved with the federal policy on immigration enforcement. Unlike Arizona's policy of "attrition through enforcement", the federal government also balances enforcement efforts against humanitarian concerns (usually on a case by case basis) and issues of foreign relations.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know I keep harping on this business about claims that the Arizona law is necessary because the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws, but it's germane to the lawsuit.

The statement that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws is a statement of fact that is objectively false. It's used as evidence to justify the Arizona law. Usually, when I point out that it's a false statement of fact, the person making the claim will quickly backpedal and say that he meant to say that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws "enough".

This statement, however, is an expression of an opinion--the sort of thing that is used to establish policy. And the point here is that disagreement on this opinion is disagreement about a policy. People who support the Arizona law disagree with the federal government's policy regarding enforcement of immigration laws. (That is, emphasis on going after the most violent criminals among illegals and balancing enforcement efforts against humanitarian concerns and issues of foreign policy.)

You might disagree with this policy (and I will happily debate that as a matter of opinion where reasonable minds can disagree), but it is the policy of the federal government, and the Arizona policy differs from it. The federal government's lawsuit claims that the Arizona policy conflicts with and undermines that of the federal government. Again, this is a point on which reasonable minds can disagree, and I'm happy to discuss this too. (My position is that the federal government has a valid case.)

But, claiming that the federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws, or claiming that "limited enforcement" (as if there is any other kind--i.e. infinite enforcement) is not a policy is not a statement of fact that can support anything.

The assertion that the federal policy is not the best policy is a debate anyone can have (and I don't even think it's the best policy--though I do think it's a good policy unless or until we have comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the real world issues of immigration especially of Mexican migrant workers), but it doesn't support the position that the Arizona policy is constitutional.

 

[WildCat]

And I'm not sure how you even mean that illegal immigration hurts you as someone who works in food service or construction. Are you claiming that illegal immigration is the cause of high unemployment or low pay rates?

It's certainly a major cause of lower pay. Are you actually going to deny this?

 

[lomiller]

don't look like it's been posted yet, but parts of the law have been blocked

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/2...sial-arizona-immigration-law/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's certainly a major cause of lower pay. Are you actually going to deny this?

I'm no economist, so I really don't know, but I'm willing to concede for sake of discussion that illegal immigration is one cause of lower pay for some job sectors.

[ETA: If pipelineaudio is talking about minimum wage jobs, the fact that illegals sometimes get paid less won't lower the wages of people legally employed. That's why I wasn't sure what argument he was making. If it was reduced wages or the they're-taking-our-jobs argument. . .or both.]

However, the Arizona law would exacerbate rather than resolve this problem because it would interfere with federal immigration enforcement, which is now at record high levels.

Also, I think comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes our economic dependence on illegal labor would be the best way to address this issue. (A viable guest worker program, for example, and tighter federal regulation of employers of these alien migrant workers.)

And finally, even if Arizona's policy of "attrition through enforcement" were an effective way to resolve this problem, it would do so at the cost of other considerations (getting rid of violent criminals, balancing enforcement with humanitarian concerns and issues related to foreign relations), and it's not in Arizona's authority to make these policy decisions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

don't look like it's been posted yet, but parts of the law have been blocked

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/2...sial-arizona-immigration-law/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

I hope this doesn't mean that a final decision from this court will be a long time coming. I suspect whatever the final ruling on the various lawsuits before Judge Bolton, the result will be appealed.

If she just strikes down the big issues (the same ones blocked by the injunction), it may allow proponents of the law to save face and claim a victory because the entire law wasn't ruled unconstitutional.

And I think whoever wrote the legislation anticipated parts of it being ruled unconstitutional:

Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction
15 A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or
16 circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions
17 or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid
18 provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are
19 severable.

 

[WildCat]

Also, I think comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes our economic dependence on illegal labor would be the best way to address this issue. (A viable guest worker program, for example, and tighter federal regulation of employers of these alien migrant workers.)

Explain why we have economic dependence on illegal labor again? Last I checked, unemployment is ~10% (real unemployment much higher), and you think we need to import low-skilled workers?

 

[pipelineaudio]

There are several bogus arguments here.

Yes, your arguments are bogus

We all benefit from public education of everyone who lives in our country. Indeed, that's why people with no children still have to pay for public education through their taxes.

Our children suffer because while there is no money to pay for the regular teachers we need (communities are holding fundraisers to keep teachers) the federal government is forcing us to hire record numbers of ESL teachers, but only for illegal hispanics, not for asians, koreans, chinese, etc...

Since the parents of the illegals are not paying tax into the school system (go ahead and tell me the coyotee houses are a major property tax base) they are a giant drain.

And I'm not sure how you even mean that illegal immigration hurts you as someone who works in food service or construction. Are you claiming that illegal immigration is the cause of high unemployment or low pay rates?

When 100 dollar a plate restaurants are only hiring illegals, I am hard pressed to find customers. Are you seriously going to tell me illegals don't cost US jobs in the food service and construction? Are you going to tell me it doesn't lower wages?

These other examples you give are not at all unique to illegal aliens. In fact, since you can't possibly know the immigration status of the "hit and splits", it's absurd for you to argue that this is harm done to you by illegal immigration.

Yes we can. We call them "hit and split" instead of "hit and run" PRECISELY because they are illegals. When the cops get there, and it turns out they are illegals, the cops can only take the accident info, and there is NOTHING else you or the police can do, therefore they split the scene and you pay the bill.

And believe it or not, there are more U.S. citizens without health insurance than there are illegal aliens (with or without insurance).

and?

As a derail on that last point: I assume you are consistent in this concern about who pays for the healthcare of the uninsured and you therefore supported the Healthcare Affordabilty Act? I also assume that you were opposed to excluding illegal immigrants from those measures (requiring that they too have to have coverage and pay at least something into the system)?
I'm rather certain you held the opposite positions, which are of course inconsistent with your concern about the costs of providing healthcare to the uninsured.

Red herring what?

And there's still the other questions: Do you disagree with my assertion that illegals who commit violent crimes are more harmful than illegal immigrants who commit no other crimes?

Depends how you define "harmful". A lot of non violent illegals are involved in payroll fraud and identity theft

Do you think it makes more sense to spend limited resources going after the most harmful illegals?

I dont think we have only one choice or limited resources. I think this enforcement pays for itself. I support allowing businesses who would like to hire legally the chance to do it without being destroyed by competitors who only hire illegally

And I haven't even pointed out to you the other issues involved with the federal policy on immigration enforcement. Unlike Arizona's policy of "attrition through enforcement", the federal government also balances enforcement efforts against humanitarian concerns (usually on a case by case basis) and issues of foreign relations.

Unlike you, we DO handle the humanitarian concerns. We give them water so they don't DIE. What do YOU do?

 

[pipelineaudio]

don't look like it's been posted yet, but parts of the law have been blocked

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/2...sial-arizona-immigration-law/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Crap, looks like its on to plan b

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yet another link with information about federal enforcement efforts resulting in record levels:

http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0907/090714washington.htm

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Our children suffer because while there is no money to pay for the regular teachers we need (communities are holding fundraisers to keep teachers) the federal government is forcing us to hire record numbers of ESL teachers, but only for illegal hispanics, not for asians, koreans, chinese, etc...

I challenge all the facts you allege here. Do you suppose all (or even most) ESL students are illegals? On what do you base that supposition?

Since the parents of the illegals are not paying tax into the school system (go ahead and tell me the coyotee houses are a major property tax base) they are a giant drain.

Again, the reason we use property taxes to pay for public education is that we all benefit. By your thinking, people like me (someone who pays property tax but has no children) isn't getting a fair shake.

When 100 dollar a plate restaurants are only hiring illegals, I am hard pressed to find customers. Are you seriously going to tell me illegals don't cost US jobs in the food service and construction? Are you going to tell me it doesn't lower wages?

Again, if you're talking about legal minimum wage jobs, yes that's what I'm saying. You can't go lower than the minimum and still be legal, can you?

Again, the Arizona law would worsen rather than help these problems by interfering with federal enforcement policy (which, in case you haven't heard, is at all-time record high levels). Comprehensive immigration reform could address these problems. Also, the problem of unemployment is primarily the result of the national economic downturn. That's why unemployment is high even in areas with relatively few illegal aliens.

I think you're exaggerating the magnitude of the problem, and not considering those other concerns the federal policy takes into consideration.

Yes we can. We call them "hit and split" instead of "hit and run" PRECISELY because they are illegals. When the cops get there, and it turns out they are illegals, the cops can only take the accident info, and there is NOTHING else you or the police can do, therefore they split the scene and you pay the bill.

How do the cops determine that they are illegals? (Remember, at the heart of the Arizona law is the issue that state authorities cannot make that determination.)

Red herring what?

I said it was a bit of a derail. So--is your position consistent? Or is the healthcare argument just an expedient argument, and you would prefer the Healthcare Affordability Act remain as it is and not include illegals in the individual mandate for insurance?

Depends how you define "harmful". A lot of non violent illegals are involved in payroll fraud and identity theft

Yes, and now we're back to my first question to you that you have never answered. Do you think an illegal alien who is a violent criminal is more dangerous than illegal aliens who commit no other crimes?

[ETA: This again goes to the question of the best policy on how to use limited enforcement resources.]

I dont think we have only one choice or limited resources.

I see you live in Neally's fantasy world where resources are infinite.

I think this enforcement pays for itself.

You're wrong.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budget/fy2009/homeland.html

Unlike you, we DO handle the humanitarian concerns. We give them water so they don't DIE. What do YOU do?

You're trying to turn this into an ad hominem argument. (And you don't want to do that on this point anyway.) My point is that the Arizona law establishes a policy of "attrition through enforcement" which does not take into account those other considerations (including humanitarian concerns) which the federal policy balances against enforcement.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Crap, looks like its on to plan b

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but all that happened today was that the judge issued a temporary injunction against key provisions of the law. She has not ruled on the lawsuit yet.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Again, if you're talking about legal minimum wage jobs, yes that's what I'm saying. You can't go lower than the minimum and still be legal, can you?

Now I understand why this whole issue is so perplexing to you. You aren't even on the same planet. I'll admit that to an outsider, just as I was when moving to AZ from Hawaii, long, long ago, the problems in Arizona seem so bizzarre as to be made up, but in truth yes, things really are as weird as it seems.

 

[Neally]

I see you live in Neally's fantasy world where resources are infinite.

Nope, I never demanded infinite resources be spent on immigration enforcement. I even provided several ways that enforcement could be increased with NO increase to the current budget and NO increase to taxes.
I think the Heritage Foundation made a good point on this issue:

How can Judge Bolton rationally conclude that Arizona is placing an impermissible burden on the federal government to respond to citizenship verification requests when federal law mandates that the feds respond to such requests? The judge’s reasoning is foolish – she is treating the Obama administration’s enforcement priorities (or lack of enforcement priorities) as if they are federal law. Arizona’s law does not conflict with federal immigration law, although it may conflict with the Obama administration’s policies. But policy conflicts do not result in federal preemption. Judge Bolton’s reasoning also conflicts with a very recent First Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Estrada v. Rhode Island, that upheld the right of state law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals detained for other reasons such as a traffic stop, as well as other precedents.

-http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/28/on-arizona-and-immigration-judge-ignores-rule-of-law/#more-39946