Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

AZ is dealing with a situation where the Feds have failed to secure the border. Illegals are here, now. No amount of border security in the future will effect the illegals who are already here. And AZ has the right to have illegals who are in AZ removed, now.

Which right is that, exactly?

Federal law requires that foreign nationals who have violated immigration laws be deported except in certain cases of extenuating circumstances.

 

[Christo]

I don't contribute to causes I don't support. The claim that this interferes with federal power is a joke. And the law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The only way to successfully challenge it would be to demonstrate that it was being enforced unconstitutionally despite the safeguards in the law itself. Suspicion of racial profiling is not enough. Facts must be developed. The issue is not ripe for determination. You've wasted your money.

Serious question, because I'm no lawyer like you are: are you sure about this? It seems to me that I've read in the past where courts overturned laws based on the potential of the law to be unconstitutional. Why not in this case? If you could reasonably demonstrate that the enforcement of this law will inevitably result in racial profiling despite the fact that the law prohibits it, that should be enough to overturn it. I think this can be reasonably demonstrated with just a little common sense.

Perhaps you can locate one of these cases.

I dunno. Are you saying that in the history of the courts, this has never happened?

I'm saying "Perhaps you can locate one of these cases."

 

[oneohh]

I don't contribute to causes I don't support. The claim that this interferes with federal power is a joke. And the law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The only way to successfully challenge it would be to demonstrate that it was being enforced unconstitutionally despite the safeguards in the law itself. Suspicion of racial profiling is not enough. Facts must be developed. The issue is not ripe for determination. You've wasted your money.

Serious question, because I'm no lawyer like you are: are you sure about this? It seems to me that I've read in the past where courts overturned laws based on the potential of the law to be unconstitutional. Why not in this case? If you could reasonably demonstrate that the enforcement of this law will inevitably result in racial profiling despite the fact that the law prohibits it, that should be enough to overturn it. I think this can be reasonably demonstrated with just a little common sense.

Perhaps you can locate one of these cases.

not sure you'll want anything to do with it considering where he's going to have to pull it from

 

[oneohh]

Other than the Hispanic vote, why would Obama want this? If it takes "racial profiling" to protect this country I'm all for it.

 

[timschochet]

Other than the Hispanic vote, why would Obama want this? If it takes "racial profiling" to protect this country I'm all for it.

Maybe because it's wrong?

 

[timschochet]

I don't contribute to causes I don't support. The claim that this interferes with federal power is a joke. And the law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The only way to successfully challenge it would be to demonstrate that it was being enforced unconstitutionally despite the safeguards in the law itself. Suspicion of racial profiling is not enough. Facts must be developed. The issue is not ripe for determination. You've wasted your money.

Serious question, because I'm no lawyer like you are: are you sure about this? It seems to me that I've read in the past where courts overturned laws based on the potential of the law to be unconstitutional. Why not in this case? If you could reasonably demonstrate that the enforcement of this law will inevitably result in racial profiling despite the fact that the law prohibits it, that should be enough to overturn it. I think this can be reasonably demonstrated with just a little common sense.

Perhaps you can locate one of these cases.

I dunno. Are you saying that in the history of the courts, this has never happened?

I'm saying "Perhaps you can locate one of these cases."

This is the closest I could find, from 1997. It seems to indicate that the states are powerless to make laws regarding immigration:A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled Friday that Proposition 187, the divisive 1994 ballot initiative targeting illegal immigrants, violates both the Constitution and last year's sweeping congressional overhaul of welfare law.

The ruling effectively means that, barring a successful appeal, the controversial measure that focused attention nationwide on the problem of illegal immigration will never be fully implemented.

"Proposition 187, as drafted, is not constitutional on its face," Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer declared in a 32-page opinion.

Although observers had long anticipated the finding, much of the judge's decision turned on a relatively new law--last year's sweeping congressional reform of the federal welfare system, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Proposition 187 served as a catalyst for many of that law's far-reaching restrictions on benefits for immigrants, those here legally as well as illegal residents.

The 1996 welfare statute, the judge ruled, "serves to reinforce" her prior finding that Proposition 187 is a "scheme" designed to regulate immigration, an exclusively federal domain. State officials seeking to restrict immigrant access to benefits must live by the guidelines outlined in the new federal law, she ruled.

"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration," Pfaelzer said. "It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."

The judge cited as unlawful the initiative's major sections--those barring illegal immigrants from receiving publicly funded education, social services and health care--along with provisions mandating that local law enforcement authorities, school administrators, social workers and health care aides turn in suspected illegal immigrants.

However, the judge did let stand two less controversial sections that establish state criminal penalties for the manufacture and use of false documents to conceal immigration status.

The judge requested that attorneys submit additional motions by Nov. 28, but lawyers on both sides of the issue said the decision clearly signals that she will soon issue a permanent injunction to replace the existing temporary ban. The final order could come by the end of the year, attorneys said.

 

[timschochet]

Anyhow, I am betting that Christo and others are wrong and that this terrible law WILL be found to be unconstitutional. I certainly hope so. We'll have to see how it turns out. If I am wrong and the law is allowed to be enforced, then we'll have to find other means to battle for freedom, such as isolating Arizona. I hope that among those reading this, there are a FEW of you that agree with me. If so, I hope you'll choose to contribute to the ACLU or the other groups fighting this. Especially at times like these when common sense seems to be a minority opinion, those of us on the side of liberty need to stand up and be counted.

 

[oneohh]

Other than the Hispanic vote, why would Obama want this? If it takes "racial profiling" to protect this country I'm all for it.

Maybe because it's wrong?

Being in this country illegally? Yes, that is wrong.

 

[Christo]

This is the closest I could find, from 1997. It seems to indicate that the states are powerless to make laws regarding immigration:

A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled Friday that Proposition 187, the divisive 1994 ballot initiative targeting illegal immigrants, violates both the Constitution and last year's sweeping congressional overhaul of welfare law.

The ruling effectively means that, barring a successful appeal, the controversial measure that focused attention nationwide on the problem of illegal immigration will never be fully implemented.

"Proposition 187, as drafted, is not constitutional on its face," Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer declared in a 32-page opinion.

Although observers had long anticipated the finding, much of the judge's decision turned on a relatively new law--last year's sweeping congressional reform of the federal welfare system, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Proposition 187 served as a catalyst for many of that law's far-reaching restrictions on benefits for immigrants, those here legally as well as illegal residents.

The 1996 welfare statute, the judge ruled, "serves to reinforce" her prior finding that Proposition 187 is a "scheme" designed to regulate immigration, an exclusively federal domain. State officials seeking to restrict immigrant access to benefits must live by the guidelines outlined in the new federal law, she ruled.

"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration," Pfaelzer said. "It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."

The judge cited as unlawful the initiative's major sections--those barring illegal immigrants from receiving publicly funded education, social services and health care--along with provisions mandating that local law enforcement authorities, school administrators, social workers and health care aides turn in suspected illegal immigrants.

However, the judge did let stand two less controversial sections that establish state criminal penalties for the manufacture and use of false documents to conceal immigration status.

The judge requested that attorneys submit additional motions by Nov. 28, but lawyers on both sides of the issue said the decision clearly signals that she will soon issue a permanent injunction to replace the existing temporary ban. The final order could come by the end of the year, attorneys said.

What does that have to do with racial profiling?

 

[timschochet]

Other than the Hispanic vote, why would Obama want this? If it takes "racial profiling" to protect this country I'm all for it.

Maybe because it's wrong?

Being in this country illegally? Yes, that is wrong.

We're not going to agree on that, oneohh, so let me move on to a secondary argument: even if you believe that illegal immigration is wrong, a serious problem, and that all illegals need to be deported, I would still argue that the Arizona law is not the means to enforce this. In fact, I would argue that there is no way to enforce this that would not be worse than the problem itself.

 

[timschochet]

This is the closest I could find, from 1997. It seems to indicate that the states are powerless to make laws regarding immigration:

A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled Friday that Proposition 187, the divisive 1994 ballot initiative targeting illegal immigrants, violates both the Constitution and last year's sweeping congressional overhaul of welfare law.

The ruling effectively means that, barring a successful appeal, the controversial measure that focused attention nationwide on the problem of illegal immigration will never be fully implemented.

"Proposition 187, as drafted, is not constitutional on its face," Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer declared in a 32-page opinion.

Although observers had long anticipated the finding, much of the judge's decision turned on a relatively new law--last year's sweeping congressional reform of the federal welfare system, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Proposition 187 served as a catalyst for many of that law's far-reaching restrictions on benefits for immigrants, those here legally as well as illegal residents.

The 1996 welfare statute, the judge ruled, "serves to reinforce" her prior finding that Proposition 187 is a "scheme" designed to regulate immigration, an exclusively federal domain. State officials seeking to restrict immigrant access to benefits must live by the guidelines outlined in the new federal law, she ruled.

"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration," Pfaelzer said. "It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."

The judge cited as unlawful the initiative's major sections--those barring illegal immigrants from receiving publicly funded education, social services and health care--along with provisions mandating that local law enforcement authorities, school administrators, social workers and health care aides turn in suspected illegal immigrants.

However, the judge did let stand two less controversial sections that establish state criminal penalties for the manufacture and use of false documents to conceal immigration status.

The judge requested that attorneys submit additional motions by Nov. 28, but lawyers on both sides of the issue said the decision clearly signals that she will soon issue a permanent injunction to replace the existing temporary ban. The final order could come by the end of the year, attorneys said.

What does that have to do with racial profiling?

It has to do with whether or not a state can write its own laws regarding immigration. This federal judge says no.

 

[oneohh]

Anyhow, I am betting that Christo and others are wrong and that this terrible law WILL be found to be unconstitutional. I certainly hope so. We'll have to see how it turns out. If I am wrong and the law is allowed to be enforced, then we'll have to find other means to battle for freedom, such as isolating Arizona. I hope that among those reading this, there are a FEW of you that agree with me. If so, I hope you'll choose to contribute to the ACLU or the other groups fighting this. Especially at times like these when common sense seems to be a minority opinion, those of us on the side of liberty need to stand up and be counted.

You don't get much attention in the real world, do you?

 

[videoguy505]

If I am wrong and the law is allowed to be enforced, then we'll have to find other means to battle for freedom, such as isolating Arizona.

Talk about veiled threats

Is your "fundamental understanding of the constitution" involve resorting to "2nd Amendment solutions" when the vote doesn't go your way?

Your hypocrisy is always good for a laugh.

 

[videoguy505]

It has to do with whether or not a state can write its own laws regarding immigration. This federal judge says no.

For about the hundredth time, Timmy, the AZ law only refers LEOs to relevant portions of federal law. It creates no new law of its own. I don't know how to explain that in any clearer terms for you to understand.

 

[timschochet]

If I am wrong and the law is allowed to be enforced, then we'll have to find other means to battle for freedom, such as isolating Arizona.

Talk about veiled threats

Is your "fundamental understanding of the constitution" involve resorting to "2nd Amendment solutions" when the vote doesn't go your way?

Your hypocrisy is always good for a laugh.

I'm not talking about violent solutions. Don't know where you get that. I'm talking about stuff like economic boycotts, the pressure that was put on for the MLK birthday, stuff like that. Not violence, never never never.

 

[Christo]

This is the closest I could find, from 1997. It seems to indicate that the states are powerless to make laws regarding immigration:

A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled Friday that Proposition 187, the divisive 1994 ballot initiative targeting illegal immigrants, violates both the Constitution and last year's sweeping congressional overhaul of welfare law.

The ruling effectively means that, barring a successful appeal, the controversial measure that focused attention nationwide on the problem of illegal immigration will never be fully implemented.

"Proposition 187, as drafted, is not constitutional on its face," Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer declared in a 32-page opinion.

Although observers had long anticipated the finding, much of the judge's decision turned on a relatively new law--last year's sweeping congressional reform of the federal welfare system, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Proposition 187 served as a catalyst for many of that law's far-reaching restrictions on benefits for immigrants, those here legally as well as illegal residents.

The 1996 welfare statute, the judge ruled, "serves to reinforce" her prior finding that Proposition 187 is a "scheme" designed to regulate immigration, an exclusively federal domain. State officials seeking to restrict immigrant access to benefits must live by the guidelines outlined in the new federal law, she ruled.

"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration," Pfaelzer said. "It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."

The judge cited as unlawful the initiative's major sections--those barring illegal immigrants from receiving publicly funded education, social services and health care--along with provisions mandating that local law enforcement authorities, school administrators, social workers and health care aides turn in suspected illegal immigrants.

However, the judge did let stand two less controversial sections that establish state criminal penalties for the manufacture and use of false documents to conceal immigration status.

The judge requested that attorneys submit additional motions by Nov. 28, but lawyers on both sides of the issue said the decision clearly signals that she will soon issue a permanent injunction to replace the existing temporary ban. The final order could come by the end of the year, attorneys said.

What does that have to do with racial profiling?

It has to do with whether or not a state can write its own laws regarding immigration. This federal judge says no.

I'm not going to do this with you, timmy. You bolded my statement about suspicion of racial profiling. I asked you for an example. But you gave an example involving regulating immigration not racial profiling.

 

[videoguy505]

If I am wrong and the law is allowed to be enforced, then we'll have to find other means to battle for freedom, such as isolating Arizona.

Talk about veiled threats

Is your "fundamental understanding of the constitution" involve resorting to "2nd Amendment solutions" when the vote doesn't go your way?

Your hypocrisy is always good for a laugh.

I'm not talking about violent solutions. Don't know where you get that. I'm talking about stuff like economic boycotts, the pressure that was put on for the MLK birthday, stuff like that. Not violence, never never never.

Isolate Arizona and battle for freedom. Don't see how the word "battle" can be interpreted any differently.Forgive me for linking a military term such as "Battle" with violence.

 

[oneohh]

Other than the Hispanic vote, why would Obama want this? If it takes "racial profiling" to protect this country I'm all for it.

Maybe because it's wrong?

Being in this country illegally? Yes, that is wrong.

We're not going to agree on that, oneohh, so let me move on to a secondary argument: even if you believe that illegal immigration is wrong, a serious problem, and that all illegals need to be deported, I would still argue that the Arizona law is not the means to enforce this. In fact, I would argue that there is no way to enforce this that would not be worse than the problem itself.

And I'd argue that you're missing the larger point: the federal government is neglecting the safety of the citizens of Arizona. What's worse is the administration is doing this for political gain. The lawful citizens of this country should come first no matter how you feel about immigrants. This isn't just about a poor family that comes here for a better life, its about those who would abuse rights they don't deserve in the first place at the expense of those who do.

 

[timschochet]

It has to do with whether or not a state can write its own laws regarding immigration. This federal judge says no.

For about the hundredth time, Timmy, the AZ law only refers LEOs to relevant portions of federal law. It creates no new law of its own. I don't know how to explain that in any clearer terms for you to understand.

Doesn't matter. It's a state law which says this is how we (the state) choose to interpret and enforce federal laws. I'm betting that won't fly; I'm hoping it won't.

 

[timschochet]

Other than the Hispanic vote, why would Obama want this? If it takes "racial profiling" to protect this country I'm all for it.

Maybe because it's wrong?

Being in this country illegally? Yes, that is wrong.

We're not going to agree on that, oneohh, so let me move on to a secondary argument: even if you believe that illegal immigration is wrong, a serious problem, and that all illegals need to be deported, I would still argue that the Arizona law is not the means to enforce this. In fact, I would argue that there is no way to enforce this that would not be worse than the problem itself.

And I'd argue that you're missing the larger point: the federal government is neglecting the safety of the citizens of Arizona. What's worse is the administration is doing this for political gain. The lawful citizens of this country should come first no matter how you feel about immigrants. This isn't just about a poor family that comes here for a better life, its about those who would abuse rights they don't deserve in the first place at the expense of those who do.

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

 

[Don't Noonan]

Tim, what other laws are you okay with being broken? Theft? Do you support Robin Hood? I mean, he steals from the rich and gives to the poor? Sound like anyone familiar?

The fact is that most Americans agree with Arizona and you are in the minority. The fact is that Arizona is having to deal with this themselves because Obama refuses to help out. There have been numorous murders along the border from drug smugglers and it can't continue. Take a look at this sign now posted on the border of Mexico in Arizona which is near the bottom of this link. Danger - Public Warning

 

[whoknew]

Tim, what other laws are you okay with being broken? Theft? Do you support Robin Hood?

Who doesn't?I mean, not the Kevin Costner one, but certainly Errol Flynn.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not going to do this with you, timmy. You bolded my statement about suspicion of racial profiling. I asked you for an example. But you gave an example involving regulating immigration not racial profiling.

What I bolded was not your comments about racial profiling per se, but about your assertion that a law could not be overturned based on it's potential to do damage to the constitution rather than its actuality. You asked for me an example, and I think I produced one. Under your interpretation of how the law should work, you would have accepted "separate but equal" in 1890 based on the fact that no one at that time could prove that it wouldn't work. Sometimes you can use simple common sense to prove something. There is no way to enforce this law without some sort of racial profiling. There is no way that police officers can be "suspiciious" of who illegal immigrants are without resorting to profiling. I don't care how much extra stuff they write into the law to prevent it, the result is inevitable. I think everyone knows this, but they don't want to face it.

 

[Christo]

I'm not going to do this with you, timmy. You bolded my statement about suspicion of racial profiling. I asked you for an example. But you gave an example involving regulating immigration not racial profiling.

What I bolded was not your comments about racial profiling per se, but about your assertion that a law could not be overturned based on it's potential to do damage to the constitution rather than its actuality. You asked for me an example, and I think I produced one. Under your interpretation of how the law should work, you would have accepted "separate but equal" in 1890 based on the fact that no one at that time could prove that it wouldn't work. Sometimes you can use simple common sense to prove something. There is no way to enforce this law without some sort of racial profiling. There is no way that police officers can be "suspiciious" of who illegal immigrants are without resorting to profiling. I don't care how much extra stuff they write into the law to prevent it, the result is inevitable. I think everyone knows this, but they don't want to face it.

No, that's exactly what you bolded--Suspicion of racial profiling is not enough.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, what other laws are you okay with being broken? Theft? Do you support Robin Hood? I mean, he steals from the rich and gives to the poor? Sound like anyone familiar?

The fact is that most Americans agree with Arizona and you are in the minority. The fact is that Arizona is having to deal with this themselves because Obama refuses to help out. There have been numorous murders along the border from drug smugglers and it can't continue. Take a look at this sign now posted on the border of Mexico in Arizona which is near the bottom of this link. Danger - Public Warning

1. If a law is unjust, then it should not be obeyed. Even if a law is just, if the cost to society of enforcing it is greater than the gain to society achieved by enforcing it, then the law should not be enforced.2. It is true that most Americans do not share my viewpoint on this issue. That doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make me right. I don't take any comfort when the majority agrees with me, so it doesn't cause me to question myself now. Hopefully the courts will agree with me; guess we'll see.

3. Don't blame Obama for "refusing to help out." He's only the latest in a long line of presidents, Republican and Democrat, who have done nothing to enforce the deportation of illegal immigrants. When will people realize that there is a reason nothing is done? It's because the results people want is impossible, and even to attempt it will make things worse.

4. The murders across the border need to stop. Whatever it takes to do so, let's do it. This law does NOTHING to alleviate those problems.

 

[timschochet]

Isolate Arizona and battle for freedom. Don't see how the word "battle" can be interpreted any differently.Forgive me for linking a military term such as "Battle" with violence.

Well then let me clarify it for you:1. Obviously I'm hoping this law gets overturned in the courts.2. If it does not get overturned, then police officers should enforce it to the best of their ability. I would hate to be one of them. But that is their job. No, they are not Nazis, and this law, though stupid and bad IMO, does not rise to the "Nazi" level.3. If anyone commits violence as a result of this law or as a means of protesting this law, that person needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of our laws. No exceptions.Clear enough?

 

[SofaKings]

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

Even if they are here illegally? Who cares if they are law abiding. If they stepped across the border without passing through customs or with out the proper paperwork then they are NOT law abiding people(certainly not citizens).

 

[timschochet]

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

Even if they are here illegally? Who cares if they are law abiding. If they stepped across the border without passing through customs or with out the proper paperwork then they are NOT law abiding people(certainly not citizens).

As I have written here several times, if they are here and they are law-abiding, then the cost of removing them is greater to society than the cost of having them here. So no, the law in this case should not be enforced.

 

[SofaKings]

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

Even if they are here illegally? Who cares if they are law abiding. If they stepped across the border without passing through customs or with out the proper paperwork then they are NOT law abiding people(certainly not citizens).

As I have written here several times, if they are here and they are law-abiding, then the cost of removing them is greater to society than the cost of having them here. So no, the law in this case should not be enforced.

Societal cost? It is a law enforcement issue. Something that our society is based upon. Do you own a lawn service company?

 

[timschochet]

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

Even if they are here illegally? Who cares if they are law abiding. If they stepped across the border without passing through customs or with out the proper paperwork then they are NOT law abiding people(certainly not citizens).

As I have written here several times, if they are here and they are law-abiding, then the cost of removing them is greater to society than the cost of having them here. So no, the law in this case should not be enforced.

Societal cost? It is a law enforcement issue. Something that our society is based upon. Do you own a lawn service company?

No I don't. That's better, though, than Strike2Strike asking me if I was married to a Mexican. I am not Mexican, not married to one, and since most Latinos tend to vote Democrat, I am not aligned with them politically. I don't hire illegals (that I'm aware of). I have no personal gain in this situation whatsoever. I simply believe what I believe.

 

[SofaKings]

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

Even if they are here illegally? Who cares if they are law abiding. If they stepped across the border without passing through customs or with out the proper paperwork then they are NOT law abiding people(certainly not citizens).

As I have written here several times, if they are here and they are law-abiding, then the cost of removing them is greater to society than the cost of having them here. So no, the law in this case should not be enforced.

Societal cost? It is a law enforcement issue. Something that our society is based upon. Do you own a lawn service company?

No I don't. That's better, though, than Strike2Strike asking me if I was married to a Mexican. I am not Mexican, not married to one, and since most Latinos tend to vote Democrat, I am not aligned with them politically. I don't hire illegals (that I'm aware of). I have no personal gain in this situation whatsoever. I simply believe what I believe.

That was my next question.

 

[timschochet]

That was my next question.

You should be glad you didn't ask it. Honestly. It's an embarrassing question to ask.

 

[SofaKings]

That was my next question.

You should be glad you didn't ask it. Honestly. It's an embarrassing question to ask.

Not really. I guess the question is why do you hold illegal aliens in higher regard than the citizens of this country?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And I'd argue that you're missing the larger point: the federal government is neglecting the safety of the citizens of Arizona.

The citizens of Arizona and other border states, border counties are some of the safest in America. The fears of the violence that illegals are causing is based, like most fears used to drive political movements from ignoragnce.

The crime rate in Arizona in 2008 was the lowest it has been in four decades

What's worse is the administration is doing this for political gain.

So why did the previous administration have the same policies? How is maintaining the status quo seeking "political gain"?

The lawful citizens of this country should come first no matter how you feel about immigrants. This isn't just about a poor family that comes here for a better life, its about those who would abuse rights they don't deserve in the first place at the expense of those who do.

What rights are being abused - "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?

 

[RCon]

1. If a law is unjust, then it should not be obeyed. Even if a law is just, if the cost to society of enforcing it is greater than the gain to society achieved by enforcing it, then the law should not be enforced.2. It is true that most Americans do not share my viewpoint on this issue. That doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make me right. I don't take any comfort when the majority agrees with me, so it doesn't cause me to question myself now. Hopefully the courts will agree with me; guess we'll see. 3. Don't blame Obama for "refusing to help out." He's only the latest in a long line of presidents, Republican and Democrat, who have done nothing to enforce the deportation of illegal immigrants. When will people realize that there is a reason nothing is done? It's because the results people want is impossible, and even to attempt it will make things worse. 4. The murders across the border need to stop. Whatever it takes to do so, let's do it. This law does NOTHING to alleviate those problems.

1. Who decides which laws are just and which are not? Should everyone go around indiscriminately breaking laws they don't like?2. No, the fact that you're in the minority doesn't necessarily make you wrong, especially with respect to the American public. However, does it give you pause that you're also on the opposite side of this issue from almost all of the posters on this site whose opinions you otherwise respect?3. The results people want aren't impossible. In fact, it would be quite simple (again, $100K fine for every incident of employing illegals). The reason this isn't done is because it wouldn't be good for politicians' warchests in terms of campaign contributions, not because of any altruistic or noble sentiments on the part of the Presidents.

 

[tdog]

AZ is dealing with a situation where the Feds have failed to secure the border. Illegals are here, now. No amount of border security in the future will effect the illegals who are already here. And AZ has the right to have illegals who are in AZ removed, now.

Which right is that, exactly?

Federal law requires that foreign nationals who have violated immigration laws be deported except in certain cases of extenuating circumstances.

The law simply identifies who may be removed from the United States. The executive branch gets to decide when to exercise that authority.

Such unfettered prosecutorial discretion cuts both way, by the way. Doesn't really matter how the executive finds about the alien's status, even if it is discovered through unconstitutional means.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

And I'd argue that you're missing the larger point: the federal government is neglecting the safety of the citizens of Arizona.

The citizens of Arizona and other border states, border counties are some of the safest in America. The fears of the violence that illegals are causing is based, like most fears used to drive political movements from ignoragnce.

The crime rate in Arizona in 2008 was the lowest it has been in four decades

Finally, some actual facts being inserted into the discussion.The nonsense about "illegals causing crime" is, at best, an exercise in ignorance.

 

[videoguy505]

And I'd argue that you're missing the larger point: the federal government is neglecting the safety of the citizens of Arizona.

The citizens of Arizona and other border states, border counties are some of the safest in America. The fears of the violence that illegals are causing is based, like most fears used to drive political movements from ignoragnce.

The crime rate in Arizona in 2008 was the lowest it has been in four decades

As often happens with statistics, the same numbers can result in two different conclusions.

measured by violent crimes per 100,000, the non-[Metropolitan Statistical Area] portion of Arizona has seen a dramatic increase in crime.

 

[Christo]

AZ is dealing with a situation where the Feds have failed to secure the border. Illegals are here, now. No amount of border security in the future will effect the illegals who are already here. And AZ has the right to have illegals who are in AZ removed, now.

Which right is that, exactly?

Federal law requires that foreign nationals who have violated immigration laws be deported except in certain cases of extenuating circumstances.

The law simply identifies who may be removed from the United States. The executive branch gets to decide when to exercise that authority.

Such unfettered prosecutorial discretion cuts both way, by the way. Doesn't really matter how the executive finds about the alien's status, even if it is discovered through unconstitutional means.

And nothing in the AZ law infringes upon the Fed's ability to exercise that discretion. Which is why the law does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

 

[Christo]

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

Even if they are here illegally? Who cares if they are law abiding. If they stepped across the border without passing through customs or with out the proper paperwork then they are NOT law abiding people(certainly not citizens).

Comments like this just scream out for a physical beating.

Oh, the irony. Illegal immigrants get a free pass. People who want the government to uphold the law get a beating.

 

[SofaKings]

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

Even if they are here illegally? Who cares if they are law abiding. If they stepped across the border without passing through customs or with out the proper paperwork then they are NOT law abiding people(certainly not citizens).

Comments like this just scream out for a physical beating.

So much for being a nation of laws and not of men.

 

[timschochet]

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

Even if they are here illegally? Who cares if they are law abiding. If they stepped across the border without passing through customs or with out the proper paperwork then they are NOT law abiding people(certainly not citizens).

Comments like this just scream out for a physical beating.

So much for being a nation of laws and not of men.

Why do people resort to this sort of stuff? Yesterday Mookie Blaylock was suspended for wishing me dead (along with Obama). I agree with Michael Fox's position on this (I think) and strongly disagree with SofaKings. But that doesn't matter. If you don't have a reasonable argument to back up your position, don't bother posting.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

Even if they are here illegally? Who cares if they are law abiding. If they stepped across the border without passing through customs or with out the proper paperwork then they are NOT law abiding people(certainly not citizens).

Comments like this just scream out for a physical beating.

So much for being a nation of laws and not of men.

Why do people resort to this sort of stuff? Yesterday Mookie Blaylock was suspended for wishing me dead (along with Obama). I agree with Michael Fox's position on this (I think) and strongly disagree with SofaKings. But that doesn't matter. If you don't have a reasonable argument to back up your position, don't bother posting.

It should be intuitively obvious that our immigration policy is morally bankrupt. I infrequently check out this thread to see if people have gained perspective. But honestly, I have little patience to continue this debate with people who, frankly, lack the ability to have an intelligent debate. The only way to deal with stupidity sometimes is to hit it over the head with a wooden board.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

The issue of safety is a completely different issue than illegal immigration. If there is rampant violence in Arizona or anywhere else, we need to deal with it by increased police presence, whatever that involves. We do not deal with it by attempting to remove law abiding people, the vast majority of whom are not harming anyone.

Even if they are here illegally? Who cares if they are law abiding. If they stepped across the border without passing through customs or with out the proper paperwork then they are NOT law abiding people(certainly not citizens).

Comments like this just scream out for a physical beating.

Oh, the irony. Illegal immigrants get a free pass. People who want the government to uphold the law get a beating.

Christo - I've made it quite clear in the past that I'd prefer to see our government tackle immigration reform. However, our current policy is beyond moronic.....and if folks break an immoral law, I'm cool with that. But yeah, I'd prefer to see a reasonable law - coupled with punishment of those who don't follow it.

UNTIL we have a reasonable law, then I'm comfortable watching people cross the border illegally.

 

[timschochet]

And nothing in the AZ law infringes upon the Fed's ability to exercise that discretion. Which is why the law does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

Every day, I grow more confident that you will be proven wrong about this. From the New York Times:Can Arizona’s controversial new immigration law — allowing the police to stop people and demand proof of citizenship — pass constitutional muster?

To many scholars, the answer is, simply, no.

“The law is clearly pre-empted by federal law under Supreme Court precedents,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, an expert in constitutional law and the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law.

Since the 1800s, the federal government has been in charge of controlling immigration and enforcing those laws, Professor Chemerinsky noted. And that is why, he argued, Arizona’s effort to enforce its own laws is destined to fail.

But even some experts who say they are troubled by the law said it might survive challenges.

“My view of the constitutional question is that it is unconstitutional,” said Hiroshi Motomura, co-author of leading casebooks on immigration law and a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. “But it’s a far cry from predicting empirically what a judge who actually gets this case will do.”

Whether any challenges to the Arizona law succeed could come down to the perception of judges about whether it competes with federal law.

To Kris W. Kobach, the law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who helped write Senate Bill 1070 and many other immigration measures around the country, the key issue is “concurrent enforcement” — that is, whether the state law parallels federal law without conflict.

Because the Arizona statute draws directly on federal statutes concerning documentation and other issues, “the Arizona law is perfect concurrent enforcement,” Professor Kobach said.

The tests will come soon enough. Civil rights organizations are already planning their suits, said Lucas Guttentag, director of the immigrants’ rights project of the American Civil Liberties Union. The law, Mr. Guttentag said, “will increase racial profiling and discrimination against Latinos and anyone who might appear to be an immigrant.”

President Obama criticized Arizona’s bill last week before it was signed, calling for a comprehensive immigration overhaul as an alternative to such “misguided” efforts. He also asked the Department of Justice to “examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.”

On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the department was considering several options, including a federal court challenge.

The major issue in those challenges will be whether federal law should trump state action.

“The closer the law comes to the traditional federal role,” said Juliet P. Stumpf, an associate professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School, “the more likely it is that the state law will be considered to be trespassing on the federal government’s domain.”

The new law, Professor Stumpf added, “sits right on that thin line of pure state criminal law and federally controlled immigration law.”

The courts have rebuffed state efforts through pre-emption in the past. Californians passed a voter initiative in 1994 that denied social benefits to illegal immigrants; a federal district court judge struck down the law in 1997 and the state later dropped its appeal.

Arizona has already won one challenge to a different immigration bill: the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a 2007 law that penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Federal law is not settled, however, and a similar law in Hazleton, Pa., was struck down by a federal judge.

An opinion in the appeal of the Hazleton ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is pending. Such conflicts, once they work their way through the appeals courts, often attract the interest of the Supreme Court.

The new law is controversial even within Arizona. Its critics include the attorney general, Terry Goddard, a Democrat running for governor. Mr. Goddard called the law a “tragic mistake” that “does nothing to make us safer.”

Mr. Goddard, however, has the obligation to defend it in court as the state’s chief lawyer. He said he would probably recuse himself, and enlist Mr. Kobach for the defense, as he did in the case involving the 2007 law.

Even if the new law is found constitutional on its face, critics suggest that when it is applied, it will lead to abuses that will be deemed unconstitutional. “I think it’s an inevitable consequence of the law,” Mr. Motomura said.

Grant Woods, a former Arizona attorney general who opposed the bill, agreed, saying, “People will be profiled because of the color of their skin.”

Mr. Kobach said the courts had long given the police broad authority to stop people and to make immigration arrests — and asserted that the bill “expressly prohibits racial profiling,” because it stated that officers “may not solely consider race, color or national origin.”

Julie Pace, an Arizona lawyer who brought suit challenging the 2007 law, issued, with her colleagues, an analysis of the new law arguing that “the word ‘solely’ makes this purported anti-discrimination provision an authorization to allow racial profiling and discrimination, as long as the government is not 100 percent racially motivated.”

Stewart A. Baker, a former Department of Homeland Security policy official who worked on immigration overhaul in the Bush administration, said fears of the new law were overblown.

“The coverage of this law and the text of the law are a little hard to square,” Mr. Baker said. “There’s nothing in the law that requires cities to stop people without cause, or encourages racial or ethnic profiling by itself.”

Nonetheless, Michael A. Olivas, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center and a member of the board of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, predicted that the new law would fall.

“At the end of the day, we will prevail, and will get these things struck down as the constitutional jokes that they are,” Professor Olivas said. “It is regrettable — but it’s so over the top that it may very well galvanize people.”

 

[SofaKings]

So our immigration policy and the laws that make it up are morally bankrupt? You people are loons. "It's the enforcement(or lack thereof), stupid!"

 

[Christo]

And nothing in the AZ law infringes upon the Fed's ability to exercise that discretion. Which is why the law does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

Every day, I grow more confident that you will be proven wrong about this. From the New York Times:Can Arizona’s controversial new immigration law — allowing the police to stop people and demand proof of citizenship — pass constitutional muster?

To many scholars, the answer is, simply, no.

“The law is clearly pre-empted by federal law under Supreme Court precedents,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, an expert in constitutional law and the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law.

Since the 1800s, the federal government has been in charge of controlling immigration and enforcing those laws, Professor Chemerinsky noted. And that is why, he argued, Arizona’s effort to enforce its own laws is destined to fail.

But even some experts who say they are troubled by the law said it might survive challenges.

“My view of the constitutional question is that it is unconstitutional,” said Hiroshi Motomura, co-author of leading casebooks on immigration law and a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. “But it’s a far cry from predicting empirically what a judge who actually gets this case will do.”

Whether any challenges to the Arizona law succeed could come down to the perception of judges about whether it competes with federal law.

To Kris W. Kobach, the law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who helped write Senate Bill 1070 and many other immigration measures around the country, the key issue is “concurrent enforcement” — that is, whether the state law parallels federal law without conflict.

Because the Arizona statute draws directly on federal statutes concerning documentation and other issues, “the Arizona law is perfect concurrent enforcement,” Professor Kobach said.

The tests will come soon enough. Civil rights organizations are already planning their suits, said Lucas Guttentag, director of the immigrants’ rights project of the American Civil Liberties Union. The law, Mr. Guttentag said, “will increase racial profiling and discrimination against Latinos and anyone who might appear to be an immigrant.”

President Obama criticized Arizona’s bill last week before it was signed, calling for a comprehensive immigration overhaul as an alternative to such “misguided” efforts. He also asked the Department of Justice to “examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.”

On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the department was considering several options, including a federal court challenge.

The major issue in those challenges will be whether federal law should trump state action.

“The closer the law comes to the traditional federal role,” said Juliet P. Stumpf, an associate professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School, “the more likely it is that the state law will be considered to be trespassing on the federal government’s domain.”

The new law, Professor Stumpf added, “sits right on that thin line of pure state criminal law and federally controlled immigration law.”

The courts have rebuffed state efforts through pre-emption in the past. Californians passed a voter initiative in 1994 that denied social benefits to illegal immigrants; a federal district court judge struck down the law in 1997 and the state later dropped its appeal.

Arizona has already won one challenge to a different immigration bill: the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a 2007 law that penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Federal law is not settled, however, and a similar law in Hazleton, Pa., was struck down by a federal judge.

An opinion in the appeal of the Hazleton ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is pending. Such conflicts, once they work their way through the appeals courts, often attract the interest of the Supreme Court.

The new law is controversial even within Arizona. Its critics include the attorney general, Terry Goddard, a Democrat running for governor. Mr. Goddard called the law a “tragic mistake” that “does nothing to make us safer.”

Mr. Goddard, however, has the obligation to defend it in court as the state’s chief lawyer. He said he would probably recuse himself, and enlist Mr. Kobach for the defense, as he did in the case involving the 2007 law.

Even if the new law is found constitutional on its face, critics suggest that when it is applied, it will lead to abuses that will be deemed unconstitutional. “I think it’s an inevitable consequence of the law,” Mr. Motomura said.

Grant Woods, a former Arizona attorney general who opposed the bill, agreed, saying, “People will be profiled because of the color of their skin.”

Mr. Kobach said the courts had long given the police broad authority to stop people and to make immigration arrests — and asserted that the bill “expressly prohibits racial profiling,” because it stated that officers “may not solely consider race, color or national origin.”

Julie Pace, an Arizona lawyer who brought suit challenging the 2007 law, issued, with her colleagues, an analysis of the new law arguing that “the word ‘solely’ makes this purported anti-discrimination provision an authorization to allow racial profiling and discrimination, as long as the government is not 100 percent racially motivated.”

Stewart A. Baker, a former Department of Homeland Security policy official who worked on immigration overhaul in the Bush administration, said fears of the new law were overblown.

“The coverage of this law and the text of the law are a little hard to square,” Mr. Baker said. “There’s nothing in the law that requires cities to stop people without cause, or encourages racial or ethnic profiling by itself.”

Nonetheless, Michael A. Olivas, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center and a member of the board of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, predicted that the new law would fall.

“At the end of the day, we will prevail, and will get these things struck down as the constitutional jokes that they are,” Professor Olivas said. “It is regrettable — but it’s so over the top that it may very well galvanize people.”

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

So our immigration policy and the laws that make it up are morally bankrupt? You people are loons. "It's the enforcement(or lack thereof), stupid!"

Go read some history and then report back.

 

[Card Trader]

So our immigration policy and the laws that make it up are morally bankrupt? You people are loons. "It's the enforcement(or lack thereof), stupid!"

Go read some history and then report back.

What was applicable in the past, should be now too. Terrific point.

 

[Christo]

So our immigration policy and the laws that make it up are morally bankrupt? You people are loons. "It's the enforcement(or lack thereof), stupid!"

Go read some history and then report back.

Okay, I read it all. Now what?