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

[oneohh]

The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.

Not making them out to be the devil or anything, but it's fair to say that they've got more of an agenda than CBO. Also the CBO has more resources at their disposal and their study is more recent.

Funny and prophetic...this is from 2004 http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationn.../caillegals.htmStaggering numbers:

Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.

Wow.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It just isn't a state government problem either. The local governments are getting hammered as well. Between this and the pension system I don't believe there is any way CA doesn't go insolvent. Their credit rating is already just above junk bond status.

Just wondering if you guys have any citations to support your assertion that the illegal immigrants are a major contributor to economic/budget problems. Best non-partisan thing I could find was a 2007 CBO study, the gist of which seems to be:

The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate

for state and local governments do not offset

the total cost of services provided to those immigrants.

Most of the estimates found that even though

unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to

state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset

only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions

for providing services related to education,

health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult

to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of

the unauthorized population on state and local budgets,

that impact is most likely modest.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf

Document

That isn't what we said. California has been having net domestic emmigration since 2000, but the population has always grown via immigration. The jobs and tax base being lost can't be made up by the immigrants coming in. Given the sustained growth CA government continues to undergo they either have to shrink the growth of government or find a way to lessen domestic emmigration.

I meant to be offering the question and CBO study in reply to a whole sequence of posts, mostly bg0456 and FavreCo who seemed to be attributing much of California's financials woes to the number of illegals in the state. I just don't see that from the CBO analysis, which is the one I trust the most. Of course I certainly don't see Tim's point that it's a net benefit, either. Your post just happened to be the last of the sequence and when I replied I was over the block text limit ,so I had to cut the rest. Sorry.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.

Not making them out to be the devil or anything, but it's fair to say that they've got more of an agenda than CBO. Also the CBO has more resources at their disposal and their study is more recent.

Funny and prophetic...this is from 2004 http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationn.../caillegals.htmStaggering numbers:

Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.

I missed the "funny and prophetic" part.All of that data is from non-profits with agendas- just because a link has USGOV in it doesn't mean it's government data, you know. The .com is usually a tipoff. FAIR certainly has a dog in the hunt:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform is a nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization advocating immigration policy reforms that would tighten border security and prevent illegal immigration, while reducing legal immigration levels from about 1.1 million persons per year to 300,000 per year.

My data is from a nonpartisan government service and is far more recent.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You are confusing two issues.1) Whether sections of the Arizona law are unconstitutional because they are preemepted.2) Whether the Federal Government has satisfied the additional requirements to obtain a TRO in this case.All the talk about the burdens on the federal government is most relevant to question 2, not question 1. The Feds don't just need to prove likelihood of prevailing on the merits. They need to prove irreperable harm and a benefit to the public interest through a balance of the equities. The federal resource argument is directly relevant to those equities. It's only tangentially relevant to preemption.

I understand the difference. You are correct to keep pointing it out. And I don't agree that the resource argument is tangential to the preemption argument. It's the very crux of the argument. We've read the complaint by now and the motion repeats it almost verbatim. The arguments in this holding are going to be many of the same ones we see in this line of cases going forward.

 

[jonessed]

It just isn't a state government problem either. The local governments are getting hammered as well. Between this and the pension system I don't believe there is any way CA doesn't go insolvent. Their credit rating is already just above junk bond status.

Just wondering if you guys have any citations to support your assertion that the illegal immigrants are a major contributor to economic/budget problems. Best non-partisan thing I could find was a 2007 CBO study, the gist of which seems to be:

The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate

for state and local governments do not offset

the total cost of services provided to those immigrants.

Most of the estimates found that even though

unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to

state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset

only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions

for providing services related to education,

health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult

to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of

the unauthorized population on state and local budgets,

that impact is most likely modest.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf

Document

That isn't what we said. California has been having net domestic emmigration since 2000, but the population has always grown via immigration. The jobs and tax base being lost can't be made up by the immigrants coming in. Given the sustained growth CA government continues to undergo they either have to shrink the growth of government or find a way to lessen domestic emmigration.

I meant to be offering the question and CBO study in reply to a whole sequence of posts, mostly bg0456 and FavreCo who seemed to be attributing much of California's financials woes to the number of illegals in the state. I just don't see that from the CBO analysis, which is the one I trust the most. Of course I certainly don't see Tim's point that it's a net benefit, either. Your post just happened to be the last of the sequence and when I replied I was over the block text limit ,so I had to cut the rest. Sorry.

I believe FavreCo and bg0456 simply because CA has such great welfare benefits. It's no secret why CA has 1/3 of the nations welfare recipients and illegals can get welfare here. It goes beyond just your standard services used for these kinds of studies.It isn't an argument I want to get into though. It's unwinnable from either perspective. That's why I generally stay out of trying to make that point.

 

[Card Trader]

I missed the "funny and prophetic" part.All of that data is from non-profits with agendas- just because a link has USGOV in it doesn't mean it's government data, you know. The .com is usually a tipoff. FAIR certainly has a dog in the hunt:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform is a nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization advocating immigration policy reforms that would tighten border security and prevent illegal immigration, while reducing legal immigration levels from about 1.1 million persons per year to 300,000 per year.

My data is from a nonpartisan government service and is far more recent.

I don't need a lecture on TLDs and subdomains, I'm very well versed in such things (also, I'm sure everyone knows about.com isn't a government site). Now, on to the issue, you are stating that you believe these numbers are being fabricated by FAIR?

 

[bg0546]

It just isn't a state government problem either. The local governments are getting hammered as well. Between this and the pension system I don't believe there is any way CA doesn't go insolvent. Their credit rating is already just above junk bond status.

Just wondering if you guys have any citations to support your assertion that the illegal immigrants are a major contributor to economic/budget problems. Best non-partisan thing I could find was a 2007 CBO study, the gist of which seems to be:

The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate

for state and local governments do not offset

the total cost of services provided to those immigrants.

Most of the estimates found that even though

unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to

state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset

only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions

for providing services related to education,

health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult

to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of

the unauthorized population on state and local budgets,

that impact is most likely modest.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf

Document

That isn't what we said. California has been having net domestic emmigration since 2000, but the population has always grown via immigration. The jobs and tax base being lost can't be made up by the immigrants coming in. Given the sustained growth CA government continues to undergo they either have to shrink the growth of government or find a way to lessen domestic emmigration.

I meant to be offering the question and CBO study in reply to a whole sequence of posts, mostly bg0456 and FavreCo who seemed to be attributing much of California's financials woes to the number of illegals in the state. I just don't see that from the CBO analysis, which is the one I trust the most. Of course I certainly don't see Tim's point that it's a net benefit, either. Your post just happened to be the last of the sequence and when I replied I was over the block text limit ,so I had to cut the rest. Sorry.

Ever since the CBO's "analysis" of Obama's health care plan I've lost faith in anything they say. However, any sources I cite would be considered biased by you as well. At the end of the day, all one can do is try to read whatever materials they can find, analyze it personally, and come to a reasoned conclusion. I've done this for years and the conclusion I've come to is that illegals cost us a lot more than they benefit us,.both economically and as a society. If you have reached a different conclusion we'll just have to disagree on this point.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I missed the "funny and prophetic" part.All of that data is from non-profits with agendas- just because a link has USGOV in it doesn't mean it's government data, you know. The .com is usually a tipoff. FAIR certainly has a dog in the hunt:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform is a nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization advocating immigration policy reforms that would tighten border security and prevent illegal immigration, while reducing legal immigration levels from about 1.1 million persons per year to 300,000 per year.

My data is from a nonpartisan government service and is far more recent.

I don't need a lecture on TLDs and subdomains, I'm very well versed in such things (also, I'm sure everyone knows about.com isn't a government site). Now, on to the issue, you are stating that you believe these numbers are being fabricated by FAIR?

I think they only present part of the picture, as they do not include positive economic impacts of illegal immigrants. So I don't think they're nearly as useful in an overall evaluation of economic impact as the CBO data, which also happens to be far more recent.I think you guys are correct that the net effect is negative, as the CBO data concludes. I just don't think it's overwhelmingly, cripplingly so, again as the CBO data concludes.I'm also not sure why the post constitutes something that is "funny and prophetic."

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Anyhow, legal experts please explain: What comes next?1. Does this now go to a circuit court? Or do we wait until the federal court's lawsuit goes to court? Where does that happen, and when would it happen? And what about the other lawsuits like the ACLU, do those wait until the federal lawsuit is settled or do they happen at the same time?2. If the federals lose their lawsuit, is this judge then overturned and the law immediately takes effect?3. If the federals win their lawsuit, does the case then immediately go to the Supreme Court? If so, how long does that take?Appreciate if anyone knows some or all of the answers. TIA

Arizona will most likely file an expidited appeal to the 9th Circuit sitting in San Francisco. The 9th circuit could lift the injunction or seek further argument and legal reasoning (breifs, basically) and oral arguments before ruling. Of course, either side could then appeal to the Supreme Court.At the same time, the current trial court still needs to hear arguments on the case itself. This was just preliminary relief. So the same judge has to hear the case. That will, also, require briefs and oral arguments and basically a trial on the merits.Congress could - again at the same time - act in some way to push through new federal laws touching on the issue in one way or the other. Who knows with them these days. Likewise, the Arizona state legislature could modify its law to comply with the problem areas found by the court. I'm guessing they do this if they have the political will to do it quickly, which they probably do. They ahve already amended it once ance and cut the knees out from under the racial profiling groups. It's possible they rewrite their own law to do what they need it to do without hitting the parade of horribles the court sees the federal government suffering here.

 

[Card Trader]

My data is from a nonpartisan government service and is far more recent.

From your study:

Most of the estimates that CBO reviewed did not include costsassociated with children who were born to unauthorized immigrantsin the United States because those children are U.S. citizens.If those children had been included in the estimates, theirfiscal impact—particularly on education—would have beenhigher.

However, the number of unauthorizedimmigrants in some state and local criminal justicesystems adds significantly to law enforcement costs.For example, in 2001, the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition reported that law enforcement activitiesinvolving unauthorized immigrants in four states—California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas—cost somecounty governments that share a border with Mexico acombined total of more than $108 million in 1999.41 Ofthe counties included in the report, San Diego Countyincurred the largest cost, spending over $50 million thatyear, or almost half of all estimated costs incurred by theborder counties. That amount represented about 9 percentof San Diego County’s total spending ($541 million)for law enforcement activities that year.

Also, while this "study" was done in 2007, most of the findings are from the late 90s and early 00s.

 

[TobiasFunke]

My data is from a nonpartisan government service and is far more recent.

From your study:

Most of the estimates that CBO reviewed did not include costs

associated with children who were born to unauthorized immigrants

in the United States because those children are U.S. citizens.

If those children had been included in the estimates, their

fiscal impact—particularly on education—would have been

higher.

However, the number of unauthorized

immigrants in some state and local criminal justice

systems adds significantly to law enforcement costs.

For example, in 2001, the United States/Mexico Border

Counties Coalition reported that law enforcement activities

involving unauthorized immigrants in four states—

California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas—cost some

county governments that share a border with Mexico a

combined total of more than $108 million in 1999.41 Of

the counties included in the report, San Diego County

incurred the largest cost, spending over $50 million that

year, or almost half of all estimated costs incurred by the

border counties. That amount represented about 9 percent

of San Diego County’s total spending ($541 million)

for law enforcement activities that year.

Also, while this "study" was done in 2007, most of the findings are from the late 90s and early 00s.

I assume all data used by the nonprofits goes back that far as well. If it doesn't, it should, or it's a pretty shallow analysis.

Good point about the education cost, I hadn't seen that, and it certainly changes things. Not sure about the border patrol cost, though- that's not something associated with illegal immigrant populations in-co untry burdening resources, it's enforcementthat's burdening resources. One could easily argue that the state could save itself all that money by not bothering to police the borders, right? Seems like a different category of costs to me.

 

[bg0546]

I assume all data used by the nonprofits goes back that far as well. If it doesn't, it should, or it's a pretty shallow analysis.

Good point about the education cost, I hadn't seen that, and it certainly changes things. Not sure about the border patrol cost, though- that's not something associated with illegal immigrant populations in-co untry burdening resources, it's enforcementthat's burdening resources. One could easily argue that the state could save itself all that money by not bothering to police the borders, right? Seems like a different category of costs to me.

Um, he wasn't talking about patrolling the borders. The sentence read"law enforcement activities involving unauthorized immigrants in four states"

That's enforcement AFTER they cross the border. You know, all those crimes in our country that Tim says illegals don't commit.

 

[Card Trader]

My data is from a nonpartisan government service and is far more recent.

From your study:

Most of the estimates that CBO reviewed did not include costs

associated with children who were born to unauthorized immigrants

in the United States because those children are U.S. citizens.

If those children had been included in the estimates, their

fiscal impact—particularly on education—would have been

higher.

However, the number of unauthorized

immigrants in some state and local criminal justice

systems adds significantly to law enforcement costs.

For example, in 2001, the United States/Mexico Border

Counties Coalition reported that law enforcement activities

involving unauthorized immigrants in four states—

California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas—cost some

county governments that share a border with Mexico a

combined total of more than $108 million in 1999.41 Of

the counties included in the report, San Diego County

incurred the largest cost, spending over $50 million that

year, or almost half of all estimated costs incurred by the

border counties. That amount represented about 9 percent

of San Diego County’s total spending ($541 million)

for law enforcement activities that year.

Also, while this "study" was done in 2007, most of the findings are from the late 90s and early 00s.

I assume all data used by the nonprofits goes back that far as well. If it doesn't, it should, or it's a pretty shallow analysis.

Good point about the education cost, I hadn't seen that, and it certainly changes things. Not sure about the border patrol cost, though- that's not something associated with illegal immigrant populations in-co untry burdening resources, it's enforcementthat's burdening resources. One could easily argue that the state could save itself all that money by not bothering to police the borders, right? Seems like a different category of costs to me.

I could be mistaken, but I think that the Border Patrol agents are federal, not county/state, so this figure was for local law enforcement.

 

[Statorama]

This needs to get to the Supreme Court while there's still a chance the people of Arizona can get some justice.

Those of you in the border towns, just hang in there. Your governor wants to help you even though your president doesn't.

 

[Christo]

Makes absolutely no sense. If they've been arrested, they've already lost their liberty.Weak stuff here.

lol...not all people arrested are guilty

How is that relevant to the liberty issue?

Might want to read the next sentence in the ruling before saying I have a reading comprehension problem.

Where did I say you have a reading comprehension problem? I'll help you, nowhere. But it's becoming apparent you do have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[oneohh]

Makes absolutely no sense. If they've been arrested, they've already lost their liberty.Weak stuff here.

lol...not all people arrested are guilty

How is that relevant to the liberty issue?

Might want to read the next sentence in the ruling before saying I have a reading comprehension problem.

Where did I say you have a reading comprehension problem? I'll help you, nowhere. But it's becoming apparent you do have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I haven't been able to find a word document of the holding that could be pasted and reading the pdf the way tim posted it is like stabbing yourself with a pencil. So here is a quick synopsis that looks right but I haven't dissected the holding to make this myself, so....

I. What is enjoined

1. Requiring verification of immigration status: Requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person.

Reasoning: Pre-empted by federal law because it creates an additional burden on the federal government by increasing the number of immigration-verification requests to the federal government.

2. Failure to carry immigration papers: Creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers.

Reasoning: Pre-empted as an impermissible attempt to create its own state immigration scheme by altering the penalties established by Congress under the federal registration scheme.

3. Illegal for an illegal to solicit work: Creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work.

Reasoning: Pre-empted because there is a comprehensive federal scheme regulating employment of illegal immigrants.

4. Warrantless arrest for potentially removable alien: Authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

Reasoning: Pre-empted because determining whether a specific offense makes an alien removable is a tough decision and there is "a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens," thus impermissibly burdening legal aliens (and only the federal government can impose such burdens)

II. What is not enjoined?

1. No sanctuary cities: Prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

2. Requiring cooperation with federal authorities: Requiring that state officials work with federal officials with regard to unlawfully present aliens.

3. Permitting civil suits for sanctuary cities: Allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

4. Human smuggling crimes: Amending the crime of human smuggling.

5. Crime to pick up day laborers: Creating a crime for stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers and for day laborers to get in a motor vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic.

6. Knowing/intentional employment of illegal immigrants: Amending the crime of knowing employment of unauthorized aliens. Amending the crime of intentional employment of unauthorized aliens.

7. Employee verification: Amending the requirements for checking employment eligibility.

8. Funding for gang / immigrant enforcement: Creating the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So basically in laymen terms the federal government won this round on the argument that the State of Arizona cannot create a law that potentially forces the federal government's hand on how to prioritize and allocate its resources in performing its federal duties?

 

[Zow]

Yankee send me your e-mail. I have a copy.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee send me your e-mail. I have a copy.

Of what the holding? I do as well.

 

[Zow]

Anyhow, legal experts please explain: What comes next?

1. Does this now go to a circuit court? Or do we wait until the federal court's lawsuit goes to court? Where does that happen, and when would it happen? And what about the other lawsuits like the ACLU, do those wait until the federal lawsuit is settled or do they happen at the same time?

2. If the federals lose their lawsuit, is this judge then overturned and the law immediately takes effect?

3. If the federals win their lawsuit, does the case then immediately go to the Supreme Court? If so, how long does that take?

Appreciate if anyone knows some or all of the answers. TIA

Arizona will most likely file an expidited appeal to the 9th Circuit sitting in San Francisco. The 9th circuit could lift the injunction or seek further argument and legal reasoning (breifs, basically) and oral arguments before ruling. Of course, either side could then appeal to the Supreme Court.At the same time, the current trial court still needs to hear arguments on the case itself. This was just preliminary relief. So the same judge has to hear the case. That will, also, require briefs and oral arguments and basically a trial on the merits.

Congress could - again at the same time - act in some way to push through new federal laws touching on the issue in one way or the other. Who knows with them these days. Likewise, the Arizona state legislature could modify its law to comply with the problem areas found by the court. I'm guessing they do this if they have the political will to do it quickly, which they probably do. They ahve already amended it once ance and cut the knees out from under the racial profiling groups. It's possible they rewrite their own law to do what they need it to do without hitting the parade of horribles the court sees the federal government suffering here.

I think this will definitely happen. It may take some creative statute writing to do it because I know the state wants to criminalize something but the recent decision as a legal talisman should help. FWIW as shown by the thread I made on it I legally agree with the court's decision, but I was really hoping to get a case or two where this was charged.

 

[Zow]

Yankee send me your e-mail. I have a copy.

Of what the holding? I do as well.

Yeah, I have the 37 page order in readable format if that's not what you already have.

 

[Card Trader]

So basically in laymen terms the federal government won this round on the argument that the State of Arizona cannot create a law that potentially forces the federal government's hand on how to prioritize and allocate its resources in performing its federal duties?

That's what it seems like, the Feds aren't doing anything to curb illegal immigration, and clearly they don't want to...to the detriment of border States.

 

[videoguy505]

So basically in laymen terms the federal government won this round on the argument that the State of Arizona cannot create a law that potentially forces the federal government's hand on how to prioritize and allocate its resources in performing its federal duties?

Kind of... if I understand right, more like the federal government won the argument that another judge might later buy their full argument. Wasn't the standard that the argument might prevail in a full hearing?

 

[Zow]

So basically in laymen terms the federal government won this round on the argument that the State of Arizona cannot create a law that potentially forces the federal government's hand on how to prioritize and allocate its resources in performing its federal duties?

Kind of... if I understand right, more like the federal government won the argument that another judge might later buy their full argument. Wasn't the standard that the argument might prevail in a full hearing?

pretty much

 

[Card Trader]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So basically in laymen terms the federal government won this round on the argument that the State of Arizona cannot create a law that potentially forces the federal government's hand on how to prioritize and allocate its resources in performing its federal duties?

That's what it seems like, the Feds aren't doing anything to curb illegal immigration, and clearly they don't want to...to the detriment of border States.

This leads to a question to the lawyers - does the "detriment of border States" even matter here? I doubt that Arizona could ever prove that federal [in]action is causing them the harm close to the rhetoric, but assuming the could prove some harm would it even be relevant? Or, is it merely a case where the federal government needs to demonstrate the harm that this law does in its ability to dictate how it does its job?

 

[Zow]

So basically in laymen terms the federal government won this round on the argument that the State of Arizona cannot create a law that potentially forces the federal government's hand on how to prioritize and allocate its resources in performing its federal duties?

That's what it seems like, the Feds aren't doing anything to curb illegal immigration, and clearly they don't want to...to the detriment of border States.

This leads to a question to the lawyers - does the "detriment of border States" even matter here?

IMO no, not for the issues raised by the federal government in this lawsuit.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So basically in laymen terms the federal government won this round on the argument that the State of Arizona cannot create a law that potentially forces the federal government's hand on how to prioritize and allocate its resources in performing its federal duties?

That's what it seems like, the Feds aren't doing anything to curb illegal immigration, and clearly they don't want to...to the detriment of border States.

This leads to a question to the lawyers - does the "detriment of border States" even matter here?

IMO no, not for the issues raised by the federal government in this lawsuit.

Again, I'm not so sure. The argument here isn't that the fed is doing something adn the state wants to do something different. The argument is that the fed is doing nothing and the state wants to do something.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

 

[Card Trader]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so. Today is going to be a "deport the illegals" lunch...can I expect to see you on the other side of the fence? Apologist?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so. Today is going to be a "deport the illegals" lunch...can I expect to see you on the other side of the fence? Apologist?

Obviously the state is not doing it's job very well if they felt the need to crack down on illegals rampantly getting work in the state with a new law and costly court battles with the Fed. How many guys have they arrested picking up workers at Home Depot in the last year? According to your observations in other threads, the threat of this law has massively cut down on the amount of workers at HD. But if the state were doing it's job, those guys wouldn't have been there until now. If was designed to stop people at the border rather than when they are job seeking and going about their business once they're in the state then I'd probably think the gov't is doing a good job. But obviously it isn't.eta: No, I am not an apologist. I want the money going to illegals to be taxed just like my pay is. But it seems like all the hubbub is about the people coming in rather than the people enticing them to come in by offering them employment. A seriously hard crack down on businesses and individuals that utilize illegals as labor would cut down on the problems. It's like going after the drug users instead of the dealers. Remove the dealers.

 

[bigbottom]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so.

Interesting. How have they been doing this?

 

[scoobygang]

So basically in laymen terms the federal government won this round on the argument that the State of Arizona cannot create a law that potentially forces the federal government's hand on how to prioritize and allocate its resources in performing its federal duties?

Kind of... if I understand right, more like the federal government won the argument that another judge might later buy their full argument. Wasn't the standard that the argument might prevail in a full hearing?

No, it's a much higher hurdle than that for a preliminary injunction. The government has to have a substantial likelihood to prevail on the merits. In other words, it needs to not look like a close case on first impression.

 

[oneohh]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so. Today is going to be a "deport the illegals" lunch...can I expect to see you on the other side of the fence? Apologist?

Obviously the state is not doing it's job very well if they felt the need to crack down on illegals rampantly getting work in the state with a new law and costly court battles with the Fed. How many guys have they arrested picking up workers at Home Depot in the last year? According to your observations in other threads, the threat of this law has massively cut down on the amount of workers at HD. But if the state were doing it's job, those guys wouldn't have been there until now. If was designed to stop people at the border rather than when they are job seeking and going about their business once they're in the state then I'd probably think the gov't is doing a good job. But obviously it isn't.eta: No, I am not an apologist. I want the money going to illegals to be taxed just like my pay is. But it seems like all the hubbub is about the people coming in rather than the people enticing them to come in by offering them employment. A seriously hard crack down on businesses and individuals that utilize illegals as labor would cut down on the problems. It's like going after the drug users instead of the dealers. Remove the dealers.

So the illegals have zero accountability? How predictable.

 

[Phurfur]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so.

Interesting. How have they been doing this?

I believe the Obama Administration put a stop to it.

 

[bigbottom]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so.

Interesting. How have they been doing this?

I believe the Obama Administration put a stop to it.

How so?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so. Today is going to be a "deport the illegals" lunch...can I expect to see you on the other side of the fence? Apologist?

Obviously the state is not doing it's job very well if they felt the need to crack down on illegals rampantly getting work in the state with a new law and costly court battles with the Fed. How many guys have they arrested picking up workers at Home Depot in the last year? According to your observations in other threads, the threat of this law has massively cut down on the amount of workers at HD. But if the state were doing it's job, those guys wouldn't have been there until now. If was designed to stop people at the border rather than when they are job seeking and going about their business once they're in the state then I'd probably think the gov't is doing a good job. But obviously it isn't.eta: No, I am not an apologist. I want the money going to illegals to be taxed just like my pay is. But it seems like all the hubbub is about the people coming in rather than the people enticing them to come in by offering them employment. A seriously hard crack down on businesses and individuals that utilize illegals as labor would cut down on the problems. It's like going after the drug users instead of the dealers. Remove the dealers.

So the illegals have zero accountability? How predictable.

You can't read, how predictable. Please bold the part where I said that. TIA

 

[scoobygang]

This leads to a question to the lawyers - does the "detriment of border States" even matter here?

At this stage, it might theoretically matter because you have to balance the equities. We might be able to construct some type of scenario where a law is unconstitutional due to preemption but we can't point to any harm to the public or the feds. When we analyze the merits, it doesn't matter at all. Let's say that Massachussetts want to impose sanctions on Pakistan. Maybe that provision is incredibly popular in Massachussetts. That doesn't matter if it's preempted by the federal government's foreign affairs power.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So basically in laymen terms the federal government won this round on the argument that the State of Arizona cannot create a law that potentially forces the federal government's hand on how to prioritize and allocate its resources in performing its federal duties?

That's what it seems like, the Feds aren't doing anything to curb illegal immigration, and clearly they don't want to...to the detriment of border States.

This leads to a question to the lawyers - does the "detriment of border States" even matter here?

IMO no, not for the issues raised by the federal government in this lawsuit.

Again, I'm not so sure. The argument here isn't that the fed is doing something adn the state wants to do something different. The argument is that the fed is doing nothing and the state wants to do something.

I would hope that anyone making the claim that the "fed is doing nothing" would be shown the door. Not doing enough of what the state of Arizona thinks the federal government should be doing is not the same as "doing nothing". Not doing enough of what 70% give or take of the US population thinks the federal government should be doing is not the same as "doing nothing". The federal government will simply argue that it is doing what it believes is the appropriate functions given the federal priorities and the resources available. And what the state wants to do is not possible without federal resources.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I would hope that anyone making the claim that the "fed is doing nothing" would be shown the door. Not doing enough of what the state of Arizona thinks the federal government should be doing is not the same as "doing nothing". Not doing enough of what 70% give or take of the US population thinks the federal government should be doing is not the same as "doing nothing". The federal government will simply argue that it is doing what it believes is the appropriate functions given the federal priorities and the resources available. And what the state wants to do is not possible without federal resources.

There are regulations and laws on the books that are not being enforced. That lack of enforcement is harming the state of Arizona. All the state wants to do is protect itself from that harm. If the fedeeral argument holds then the end result is that the state of Arizona has no ability to protect itself and its citizens from this problem and they ahve to hope that the federal government does something.

 

[Card Trader]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so. Today is going to be a "deport the illegals" lunch...can I expect to see you on the other side of the fence? Apologist?

Obviously the state is not doing it's job very well if they felt the need to crack down on illegals rampantly getting work in the state with a new law and costly court battles with the Fed. How many guys have they arrested picking up workers at Home Depot in the last year? According to your observations in other threads, the threat of this law has massively cut down on the amount of workers at HD. But if the state were doing it's job, those guys wouldn't have been there until now. If was designed to stop people at the border rather than when they are job seeking and going about their business once they're in the state then I'd probably think the gov't is doing a good job. But obviously it isn't.eta: No, I am not an apologist. I want the money going to illegals to be taxed just like my pay is. But it seems like all the hubbub is about the people coming in rather than the people enticing them to come in by offering them employment. A seriously hard crack down on businesses and individuals that utilize illegals as labor would cut down on the problems. It's like going after the drug users instead of the dealers. Remove the dealers.

The State has tried to do a better job of that, but since Obama is making it hard on them it's almost impossible to enforce. He's challenged not only 1070 but the bill that was pushed through in 07 that punished employers...a bill that Napolitano actually pushed through.No one is saying the employers aren't partially at fault, but you seem to absolve the illegals themselves....

 

[Card Trader]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so.

Interesting. How have they been doing this?

http://www.azag.gov/LegalAZWorkersAct/hb27...r/laws/0279.htmEnjoy the read.

 

[oneohh]

eta: No, I am not an apologist. I want the money going to illegals to be taxed just like my pay is. But it seems like all the hubbub is about the people coming in rather than the people enticing them to come in by offering them employment. A seriously hard crack down on businesses and individuals that utilize illegals as labor would cut down on the problems. It's like going after the drug users instead of the dealers. Remove the dealers.

So the illegals have zero accountability? How predictable.

You can't read, how predictable. Please bold the part where I said that. TIA

No problemo, GB.

 

[Card Trader]

How so?

http://www.google.com

 

[scoobygang]

There are regulations and laws on the books that are not being enforced. That lack of enforcement is harming the state of Arizona. All the state wants to do is protect itself from that harm. If the fedeeral argument holds then the end result is that the state of Arizona has no ability to protect itself and its citizens from this problem and they ahve to hope that the federal government does something.

In that situation the legal remedy is a suit under the Administrative Procedures Act or an appeal to the electorate in the next election.

 

[bigbottom]

Thinking of heading downtown at lunch and joining up with the SB1070 supporters...any Phoenix area FBGs heading down there today?

Are you guys going to march in protest of employers who hire illegals and the AZ government that is not doing it's job enforcing those laws and protecting it's citizens from them? Or is it strictly a "deport the illegals" lunch?

It's pretty cool to come in here and comment on something you know very little about huh? The AZ government has been cracking down on employers and continues to do so.

Interesting. How have they been doing this?

http://www.azag.gov/LegalAZWorkersAct/hb27...r/laws/0279.htmEnjoy the read.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the link.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This leads to a question to the lawyers - does the "detriment of border States" even matter here?

.... We might be able to construct some type of scenario where a law is unconstitutional due to preemption but we can't point to any harm to the public or the feds. ...

How high is the bar of the "harm to the feds"? I think the federal government has a pretty basic argument that it cannot exercise federal powers at the whims of state laws. In this particular case it seems to be does a state creating a law that causes an increase workload qualify as interfering with its ability to perform its job? (There are a few other issues, but this is the one I have been addressing here for about a month.)

 

[bigbottom]

How so?

http://www.google.com

The Obama administration halted enforcement of the law you just linked for me?

edit: I see your reference to the administration challenging that bill as well. My understanding was that the current injunction didn't apply to any of the employer provisions. Is that not the case?

p.s. You give Arch Stanton crap up above about commenting on something you say he knows little about. You're obviously up to speed on the issues. So when I ask a question, why the snarky google link?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

There are regulations and laws on the books that are not being enforced. That lack of enforcement is harming the state of Arizona. All the state wants to do is protect itself from that harm. If the fedeeral argument holds then the end result is that the state of Arizona has no ability to protect itself and its citizens from this problem and they ahve to hope that the federal government does something.

In that situation the legal remedy is a suit under the Administrative Procedures Act or an appeal to the electorate in the next election.

I don't see how the APA would be involved. Granted I don't know much about how it works from a legal standpoint but it is geared towards the creation of regulations - not the actual enforcement, or in this case the lack thereof. What would Arizona argue? "No, we want the regulation, we just want it actually enforced!" That puts Arizona in the same place it is in now - the Executive branch has the enforcement power and it is choosing not to enfore and the Congress isn't doing anything about it.In the void of no executive and no legislature the states have the sovereign right to protect themselves. As for elections, the state of Arizona already had one and it can't dictate how other states vote. The Constitutional framework wasn't designed to punish the state of Arizona because we have a Congress with no political will of its own in this area and an executive that has made it clear he finds enforcing these regulations bordering on racism.