Statorama
gangster
I'm really pulling for the women and children of Arizona to finally get some law and order in their state.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
They have to argue preemption because the 14th Amendment argument is bunk.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Why don't we just let Mexico annex the US and be done with it?
EasyMorningRebel
Footballguy
5. Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits
The DREAM Act will allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition, even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of the DREAM Act repeals Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.
And I thought undergrad degrees were worthless now.
The DREAM Act will allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition, even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of the DREAM Act repeals Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.
And I thought undergrad degrees were worthless now.
Statorama
gangster
Chandra Levy's killer was an illegal immigrant
Fed's certainly doing a bang up job deporting illegals.
Fed's certainly doing a bang up job deporting illegals.
bueno
In a class by himself
Maybe you should make fewer assumptions too, while you are at it. And learn to use modifiers - like saying some conservatives.
timschochet
Footballguy
I think the State of Arizona may very well have a good point with this lawsuit. As everyone here knows, I believe that illegal immigration is, overall, a benefit to the United States as a whole. Yet even I wouldn't argue that it is a benefit to the border states by themselves. All 50 states reap the benefits of illegal labor, in terms of lower consumer prices, but primarily the border states are forced to pay the costs- increased crime, public health and educational costs. This seems unfair.
While I am not for stricter border control I am for the federal government being obligated to help out the state of Arizona and the other border states with regard to it's extra costs from illegal immigration. Hopefully, this lawsuit will result in at least some of this.
While I am not for stricter border control I am for the federal government being obligated to help out the state of Arizona and the other border states with regard to it's extra costs from illegal immigration. Hopefully, this lawsuit will result in at least some of this.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Too late for 9 year old Bresenia Flores and her dad, but at least it appears their murderers - three minuteman border activists - will be convicted and may get the death penalty.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Alright Lawyer Guys
A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the most contested provisions of an Arizona immigration law passed last year will remain blocked from taking effect
Do any of you have any sources to determine if this a fair conclusion?
The court ruled only on Bolton’s order, not on whether the Arizona measure is legal, and the Justice Department’s move to have the law thrown out will proceed. But the judges gave strong indications that they accept the administration’s argument that the legislation is unconstitutional and that they would rule that way in the end.
and
“I believe this will control the outcome of the case,’’ said Louis Moffa, a professor at Rutgers School of Law and an expert on immigration and constitutional law. “The court’s language is pretty stark.’’
Sounds familiar...
“Arizona has attempted to hijack a discretionary role that Congress delegated to the Executive,’’ the decision said, adding that the Arizona law would “usurp” the U.S. attorney general’s role in directing any state enforcement of federal immigration laws.
A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the most contested provisions of an Arizona immigration law passed last year will remain blocked from taking effect
Do any of you have any sources to determine if this a fair conclusion?
The court ruled only on Bolton’s order, not on whether the Arizona measure is legal, and the Justice Department’s move to have the law thrown out will proceed. But the judges gave strong indications that they accept the administration’s argument that the legislation is unconstitutional and that they would rule that way in the end.
and
“I believe this will control the outcome of the case,’’ said Louis Moffa, a professor at Rutgers School of Law and an expert on immigration and constitutional law. “The court’s language is pretty stark.’’
Sounds familiar...
“Arizona has attempted to hijack a discretionary role that Congress delegated to the Executive,’’ the decision said, adding that the Arizona law would “usurp” the U.S. attorney general’s role in directing any state enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Yep. And it was a split decision.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Apparently Judge Noonan had a change of heart since he was the other vote for administration's side.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Do you think that this particular decision is going to be appealed? Or, just some future decision that rules in the administration's favor as suggested in the article? Or, is it just too hard to know?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
It does?Unless I am completely missing it the closest thing is this section
Extended struggle
The ruling is also one of the first steps in a legal struggle expected to play out over several years. Brewer has vowed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and could appeal Monday’s decision to the full 9th Circuit.
In a joint statement, Brewer and Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne ® said they are “considering their legal options” and that they remain confident the law will eventually be found constitutional. Monday’s ruling “does harm to the safety and well-being of Arizonans who suffer the negative effects of illegal immigration,’’ they said
Or is there some other article?
You're right. It says could. I thought I remebered it saying they had decided to do so. Why wouldn't they? It doesn't take too much effort to request en banc review. And the worse that could happen is to have the request denied.
timschochet
Footballguy
Christo, if they do request en banc, how long does it take the Supreme Court to decide to agree to hear it. And if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, how long before a final ruling? (from today). Thanks.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I'm not a lawyer but I think en banc means the entire court of appeals and not just a three judge panel. That being said, it seems weird they would do this since their three judge panel included two GOP nominees and one would think by the reputation that the larger court would be even more likely to side with the administration. Again I don't live and breath this like some of our lawyer guys, so take their word for it before taking mind.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Would losing to an "en banc review" make future Supreme Court appeals less likely? And less likely successful? Or, is that irrelevant?If so to either of the above first two questions than I would think the reply to Tim would be what I can think of as the "worst that could happen".
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
OK I think you're right. I'm just trying to find out how long this all takes. Assuming that en banc is requested, agreed to, happens, and then the state or the Obama Administration appeals to the Supreme Court, and that takes place, and a ruling is finally given, how long does the entire business take?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Don't forget that the issue decided is whether or not the federal government has enough of a case to prevent the law from going into effect until another case decides whether or not the Arizona law should be struck down (or at least parts of it). So conceivably this could go to the Supreme Court and the only thing that is decided is that the law should remain block while the whole process more or less starts over - I think. For your real answer I'll yield to someone that actually knows enough to answer.
timschochet
Footballguy
From San Jose Mercury News:
July 29 marked the anniversary of Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070, the state's toughest attempt to target unauthorized immigration since the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act. Since then several states -- most notably Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama -- have passed similar laws. However, Arizona has actually hurt itself by targeting unauthorized immigrants. Other states should learn from its experience before following it down the same path.
SB 1070 proponents claim that it decreased the unauthorized population in the state, and they're probably right. But for that "achievement," SB 1070 likely slowed Arizona's recovery by increasing the regulatory burden for business and raising the cost of hiring all workers in Arizona.
Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed slews of bills that would have reduced government expenditures and lowered taxes. The same poor fiscal policies prevailed in New Mexico. The difference in New Mexico is that it hasn't passed immigration regulations that burden businesses.
Arizona's economic growth has stalled, and the unemployment rate is at 9.3 percent -- higher than both the New Mexico and national unemployment rates. New Mexico's unemployment rate has been below Arizona's since the beginning of the Great Recession.
The regulatory business burden of SB 1070 is its most damaging component. Sections 7 and 8 strengthened the 2007 Workers Act mandates that all businesses use the faulty
E-Verify system. According to a 2010 audit from Westat, E-Verify fails to identify unauthorized workers 54 percent of the time and identified some legal American workers as unauthorized. Fundamentally, Americans should not have to ask the federal government for permission to earn an honest living.
E-Verify has pushed unauthorized workers deeper into the black market. A 2011 report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that while Arizona's 2007 workers law decreased the unauthorized population of Arizona between 2008 and 2009, it also forced tens of thousands "into informal or underground employment."
SB 1070 enacted a two-strike policy through which second-time business offenders lose their business licenses for intentionally or knowingly employing unauthorized immigrants. This law championed by conservatives makes it harder for businesses to do what they are supposed to: lower costs and pass savings on to consumers. Called the business death penalty, it remains a potent economic weapon in the state's war against private property and free enterprise.
Some immigration opponents have cited an immigrant crime wave to increase support for SB 1070. Yet when SB 1070 was passed, violent crime rates were lower than any point since 1971, and property crime rates were the lowest since 1966, according to Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics at the Department of Justice. The steepest decline of all has been for the murder rate, which in 2009 was lower than any year since 1965.
The U.S. economic slowdown and accelerated growth in Mexico have significantly reduced Mexican emigration to the U.S. But nations like India, China, and Central American countries will continue to send unauthorized immigrants in ever greater numbers. Our immigration laws need to adapt to that reality, not fight a quixotic battle against it.
After a year of SB 1070, the evidence shows that long-run solutions will come from expanding legal immigration for peaceful healthy people, not from crushing regulation. The federal government bears the blame for generations of bad policy that reversed America's traditional free immigration policy. Lawmakers in Arizona -- or any other state -- cannot fix that, and they shouldn't make the problem worse.
July 29 marked the anniversary of Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070, the state's toughest attempt to target unauthorized immigration since the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act. Since then several states -- most notably Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama -- have passed similar laws. However, Arizona has actually hurt itself by targeting unauthorized immigrants. Other states should learn from its experience before following it down the same path.
SB 1070 proponents claim that it decreased the unauthorized population in the state, and they're probably right. But for that "achievement," SB 1070 likely slowed Arizona's recovery by increasing the regulatory burden for business and raising the cost of hiring all workers in Arizona.
Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed slews of bills that would have reduced government expenditures and lowered taxes. The same poor fiscal policies prevailed in New Mexico. The difference in New Mexico is that it hasn't passed immigration regulations that burden businesses.
Arizona's economic growth has stalled, and the unemployment rate is at 9.3 percent -- higher than both the New Mexico and national unemployment rates. New Mexico's unemployment rate has been below Arizona's since the beginning of the Great Recession.
The regulatory business burden of SB 1070 is its most damaging component. Sections 7 and 8 strengthened the 2007 Workers Act mandates that all businesses use the faulty
E-Verify system. According to a 2010 audit from Westat, E-Verify fails to identify unauthorized workers 54 percent of the time and identified some legal American workers as unauthorized. Fundamentally, Americans should not have to ask the federal government for permission to earn an honest living.
E-Verify has pushed unauthorized workers deeper into the black market. A 2011 report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that while Arizona's 2007 workers law decreased the unauthorized population of Arizona between 2008 and 2009, it also forced tens of thousands "into informal or underground employment."
SB 1070 enacted a two-strike policy through which second-time business offenders lose their business licenses for intentionally or knowingly employing unauthorized immigrants. This law championed by conservatives makes it harder for businesses to do what they are supposed to: lower costs and pass savings on to consumers. Called the business death penalty, it remains a potent economic weapon in the state's war against private property and free enterprise.
Some immigration opponents have cited an immigrant crime wave to increase support for SB 1070. Yet when SB 1070 was passed, violent crime rates were lower than any point since 1971, and property crime rates were the lowest since 1966, according to Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics at the Department of Justice. The steepest decline of all has been for the murder rate, which in 2009 was lower than any year since 1965.
The U.S. economic slowdown and accelerated growth in Mexico have significantly reduced Mexican emigration to the U.S. But nations like India, China, and Central American countries will continue to send unauthorized immigrants in ever greater numbers. Our immigration laws need to adapt to that reality, not fight a quixotic battle against it.
After a year of SB 1070, the evidence shows that long-run solutions will come from expanding legal immigration for peaceful healthy people, not from crushing regulation. The federal government bears the blame for generations of bad policy that reversed America's traditional free immigration policy. Lawmakers in Arizona -- or any other state -- cannot fix that, and they shouldn't make the problem worse.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
We have a conservative Supreme Court that, IMO, overemphasizes states' rights, so unfortunately you may be correct. I certainly hope not. If this idiotic law is upheld, it will be a shameful day for the United States and Arizona in particular.
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
Opinion just came out reversing in part and affirming in part. Kennedy is the author.
timschochet
Footballguy
And it appears as if we were wrong! In a 5-3 decision, the court agrees with the Obama administration, that Arizona has no power to make such a law. 
timschochet
Footballguy
The most important parts have been overturned. Illegals can't be arrested without a warrant. They have a right to work in the state.THE LAW IS GUTTED!!
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
I'm still trying to get a handle on the opinion, but I think this oversimplifies. Some provisions were upheld and others were struck down.And it appears as if we were wrong! In a 5-3 decision, the court agrees with the Obama administration, that Arizona has no power to make such a law.
The most important parts have been overturned. Illegals can't be arrested without a warrant. They have a right to work in the state.THE LAW IS GUTTED!!
timschochet
Footballguy
And if this had been the only aspect of the law to begin with, there never would have been a controversy in the first place. The main question was whether or not police could simply stop people based on suspicion of being illegal immigrants. Now we know: they can't. There was also the question of whether or not Arizona had the right to enforce making it illegal for undocumented workers to be employed in that state. They don't. It's a huge victory for immigration rights activists, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama.
The Commish
Footballguy
So how is it our knowledgeable attorneys are still trying to digest the opinion, but Tim's comfortable saying it's "gutted"?
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
If you're talking about me, I'm not that knowledgeable. Tim is obsessed with immigration and likely knows way more about this case than I do. I've seen a few commentators describe the ruling similarly to the way tim described it.
Mr. Chumley
Footballguy
FBG lawyers should be busy today. I'm hoping for some good legal commentary form some these rulings coming out today.
timschochet
Footballguy
Because that's what the attorneys on CNN say. Also regarding 2B- CNN says that it was not upheld; the Court says that it's too early to tell if this section will interfere with federal authority.
timschochet
Footballguy
Nope. I'm no legal expert. I figured, based on what I read, that the law would be upheld. I'm just responding here to what I'm watching on TV.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yes, but how is that pertinent?'jonessed said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Governor Jan Brewer declares "victory" 
Sarnoff
Footballguy
This is the section of the law that requires police to "check your papers". Seemed that was the most controversial section when this was first being discussed.
NCCommish
Footballguy
No the controversy came from applying this to stopping people for looking like immigrants and asking for their papers. Not for checking immigration status as part of an criminal investigation of something else.
Wrighteous Ray
Footballguy
I'd keep my thumb in its holster until Thursday.
NCCommish
Footballguy
This is a near total victory for the Obama admin.Governor Jan Brewer declares "victory"
timschochet
Footballguy
You're correct. I was still following CNN when I wrote that, and now they're backtracking somewhat. For me personally, though I don't like this aspect much, so long as they're not able to simply stop "suspicious" people and check their papers, I can live with it. For now. 2B will very likely be challenged at some future date and overturned when it becomes clear that only Latinos who are arrested are having their papers checked.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Yeah, and unfortunately I think this decision will be thrown back in our faces when us liberals are up in arms 2-3 days from now.I'd keep my thumb in its holster until Thursday.
