US Gov't Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law

Is this bill all or nothing for the 2 sides? is there no way that a few stipulations could me made/altered that would satisfy both sides?
 

Illegal immigration cost US $100B, Arizona $2.6B

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2010/07/05/daily30.html

Your argument is mildly irrelevant considering that comprehensive immigration reform will render these people reaping way more than they'll EVER put in. Also, 7 billion is chump change compared to the drain illegals put on hospitals and schools in border states.

Who said criminal? I was playong along with the foreign looking and thick accent - someone who could still be a citizen and law-abding, though it is likely that most citizens have committed criminal acts. Very few never speed, never jaywalk, never drank underage, etc.

So once again, we are down to foreign looking and heavy accent. - JollyRoger

Why, you did. Are you suggesting that if I murder someone, and call in a domestic abuse call because my neighbor is getting the crap kicked out of her that I should be allowed to get away with murder, or any other crime that produces reasonable suspicion from the cops.

Very few have never sped, jaywalked, or drank. But if you get caught, you pay the price and serve your punishment. Who knew illegal immigrants were immune to this simply because of race. So much for equal justice.

And again, we've already killed the whole, "foreign looking and heavy accent," argument. It's an unfounded assumption that cops are going to violate the law. Which if violated, will then result in a lawsuit.
 
Is this bill all or nothing for the 2 sides? is there no way that a few stipulations could me made/altered that would satisfy both sides?

First, immigration enforcement really is a federal issue exclusively. Nothing a state can do really changes this.

Second, drop the right of people to sue the cops to make them more aggressive. Instruct the cops that they cannot demand ID unless they have a legitimate reason to make an arrest independent of suspicions of immigration status.
 
Illegal immigration cost US $100B, Arizona $2.6B



This is the same utter nonsense that the ultraconservatives are using to try to pass similiar laws in other states.

Only $380 million was spent on uncompensated medical care and incarceration, a far cry from Workman's $3.5 billion-claim, a seemingly impossible figure, acknowledged FAIR.
 
First, immigration enforcement really is a federal issue exclusively. Nothing a state can do really changes this. - Cutlass

So the citizenry is held hostage under any and all circumstances to whatever federal laws the federal government doesn't feel like enforcing. This will be a totally awesome legal precedent.
 
So the citizenry is held hostage under any and all circumstances to whatever federal laws the federal government doesn't feel like enforcing. This will be a totally awesome legal precedent.

ICE arrests of criminal illegal immigrants (illegals convicted or arrested for serious felonies)--in the Southwest region specifically--increased by 17% in 2009. From Oct. 08 to June 09, deportations also increased nationwide by over 40,000 compared to the same period from the previous year.

Source

WASHINGTON - Criminal arrests on the Southwest Border by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have increased more than 17 percent through the first three quarters of Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, compared to the same period in FY 2008. In the nine months from Oct. 1, 2008 through June 29, 2009, ICE made 6,834 criminal arrests compared with 5,802 arrests during the same period last year. This significant increase shows ICE's emphasis on targeting criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety.

"As an investigative agency, ICE prioritizes our immigration enforcement efforts to target those who threaten the security of the American people," said ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton. "We are combining innovative and cooperative approaches - in coordination with our state, local and international partners - to help us engage in smart and effective law enforcement."

Nationwide, ICE has returned more than 18 percent more aliens to their countries of origin in FY 2009. From Oct. 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, ICE has deported or returned more than 271,200 aliens, compared to the 229,800 aliens removed during the same time period in FY 2008.
 
So the citizenry is held hostage under any and all circumstances to whatever federal laws the federal government doesn't feel like enforcing. This will be a totally awesome legal precedent.

Am I missing something or did Arizona suddenly lose their representation in Congress? :confused:

I disagree with immigration policy in this country; however, I agree that under the current laws of the land, it is a Federal Issue (the courts may think different, that's what we're about to find out). If you want that to change, have your representatives in Congress change the Federal Laws, it's really not that difficult.
 

You wouldn't measure that by the amount of tax income they produce. You measure someone's benefit to the economy based on the amount of work they do and its worth. Then, maybe, you measure the amount of money that someone spends.

Keep in mind, their benefit to the economy is not their wage. No good employer charges what they pay their employee, they charge what the employee is worth and then pocket the difference.
 
ICE arrests of criminal illegal immigrants (illegals convicted or arrested for serious felonies)--in the Southwest region specifically--increased by 17% in 2009. From Oct. 08 to June 09, deportations also increased nationwide by over 40,000 compared to the same period from the previous year. - Illram

For a guy that usually has solid arguments to bring to the table you're really coming up weak sauce tonight. I don't care that they increased by 17%, or deportations increased by 40,000 compared to the same period from the previous year, they are not making any effort to uphold their constitutional duties. If the feds decided to enforce freedom of speech like they enforce immigration laws we'd all be screwed. They could increase deportations by 200% and still not be making a dent.
 
I disagree with immigration policy in this country; however, I agree that under the current laws of the land, it is a Federal Issue (the courts may think different, that's what we're about to find out). If you want that to change, have your representatives in Congress change the Federal Laws, it's really not that difficult. - Moss

What does this have to do with anything? The only reason that the legislation exists is because the federal government, particularly the executive branch, is failing at its obligation to execute federal law. Your point in no way shape or form counters my point. If the federal government decided to disband the military and rendered us vulnerable to an invasion, would states, municipalities, and individuals be unable to defend themselves from an invasion force? If evil rasist Republicans gained power and stopped enforcing the 14th amendment and some southern cities instituted regional Jim Crow laws, would those states be helpless to stop them? This is one issue that the feds are woefully derelict at the wheel, and its specifically because BOTH parties are trying to gain access to a massive voter base.
 
First, immigration enforcement really is a federal issue exclusively. Nothing a state can do really changes this.

Awesome, by your reasoning the states should stop enforcing all federal law.

Awesome news for the the drug legalization clause. I guess all those civil rights requirments at the federal level are just up to the feds alone, right?
 
You wouldn't measure that by the amount of tax income they produce. You measure someone's benefit to the economy based on the amount of work they do and its worth. Then, maybe, you measure the amount of money that someone spends.

Keep in mind, their benefit to the economy is not their wage. No good employer charges what they pay their employee, they charge what the employee is worth and then pocket the difference.

Are you going to take into account the millions of Americans we're currently giving 99 weeks of unemployment benefits to while millions of illegals are doing jobs that "Americans won't do?" Or are we just measuring the metrics that favor your argument?
 
[Why, you did. Are you suggesting that if I murder someone, and call in a domestic abuse call because my neighbor is getting the crap kicked out of her that I should be allowed to get away with murder, or any other crime that produces reasonable suspicion from the cops.

Very few have never sped, jaywalked, or drank. But if you get caught, you pay the price and serve your punishment. Who knew illegal immigrants were immune to this simply because of race. So much for equal justice.

And again, we've already killed the whole, "foreign looking and heavy accent," argument. It's an unfounded assumption that cops are going to violate the law. Which if violated, will then result in a lawsuit.
If you read me more closely, you will see I am talking about citizens that happen to be foreign looking and sporting a heavy accent. And I don't see how you have killed the "foreign looking and heavy accent" argument since the phrase originated in this thread from someone on your side of the argument.
 
If you read me more closely, you will see I am talking about citizens that happen to be foreign looking and sporting a heavy accent. And I don't see how you have killed the "foreign looking and heavy accent" argument since the phrase originated in this thread from someone on your side of the argument.

And if you will look more closely, if this happens it will go to court, and whoever is responsible for wrongdoing will go to jail, or the bill will then be struck down. Our judicial system doesn't function in a manner that pre-emptively determines which laws will and will not be abused. The Justice Department, nor any court is in the business of striking down legally written laws because they will presumably violate the constitution before it's ever violated the constitution. If the feds are going to strike down this law, then they might as well strike down all federal laws that mitigate illegal immigration and the same damn premises.
 
And if you will look more closely, if this happens it will go to court, and whoever is responsible for wrongdoing will go to jail, or the bill will then be struck down.
Actually, the law allows for the cops to be sued for not carrying out the law. So if I were in Arizona, hired a legal maid (albeit who looks foreign and speaks with a heavy accent), beat her to the point that she called the cops and they showed up, not only would they have the duty to haul me off to jail, but they would have reasonable suspician to haul her off to ICE, especially if I were saying something along the lines of "why are you believeing this illegal alien?" If the cops didn't haul her off, I would be able to sue them under Arizona law and should be able to prevail if the law is enforced as written.
Our judicial system doesn't function in a manner that pre-emptively determines which laws will and will not be abused. The Justice Department, nor any court is in the business of striking down legally written laws because they will presumably violate the constitution before it's ever violated the constitution. If the feds are going to strike down this law, then they might as well strike down all federal laws that mitigate illegal immigration and the same damn premises.
The basis the Feds are asking for it to be struck down is the pre-emption doctrine, so I don't see how the states would use that premise. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy are pretty big fans of pre-emption, so it would not be shocking if they sided with the feds here (assuming they are consistent with their prior jurisprudence and are not tempted [again] by the lifted skirt and perfumed inner thigh of results-driven jurisprudence).
 
Yes they do.

No they don't. An innocent man cannot be imprisoned for x amount of years, but a person who has been found guilty of a crime, however, can be.

The different rights that the guilty and innocent enjoy isn't hard to grasp. Or perhaps you'd prefer the term "privileges"? Nitpicking over the exact term then.

Awesome, by your reasoning the states should stop enforcing all federal law.

Awesome news for the the drug legalization clause. I guess all those civil rights requirments at the federal level are just up to the feds alone, right?

This is true; states should enforce any and all federal laws, by extension of the Supremacy Clause saying the federal government's laws are superior to the states'. We can't just pick and choose which laws to follow... the federal gov't is not the UN. :crazyeye:

Of course, one could argue that means anything ADDED to the federal law can be struck down if the area was the federal government's responsibility in the first place, and this would be valid. The states choosing to enforce federal drug policy is very different from them outright changing their own laws to conflict with the federal government's(or adding their own regulations to the federal government's), if drugs were a federally-exclusive area. Enforcement of the law is very different from outright changing it.

But just enforcing federal law, however, has nothing wrong with it at all. Indeed, it makes the most sense if the federal government won't even enforce its laws.

I think anybody making a claim that it's not the states' place to enforce - rather than change or add onto - federal law must have an agenda. Then again, many of these individuals also want to have a unitarian state if I've noticed anything.
 
Actually, the law allows for the cops to be sued for not carrying out the law. So if I were in Arizona, hired a legal maid (albeit who looks foreign and speaks with a heavy accent), beat her to the point that she called the cops and they showed up, not only would they have the duty to haul me off to jail, but they would have reasonable suspician to haul her off to ICE, especially if I were saying something along the lines of "why are you believeing this illegal alien?" If the cops didn't haul her off, I would be able to sue them under Arizona law and should be able to prevail if the law is enforced as written. - JR

Nice strawman JR. If I murder your ma, and you come and beat me within an inch of my life, and the cops find out that I'm a DNA match for your ma's murder, do they not have the right to pursue murder charges against me? Getting beaten in your scenario is totally irrelevant unless your trying to make an appeal to emotion, which is basically the entire argument against enforcement of immigration laws, so I guess it's par for the course. Again, your suggestion is that because she has a funny accent and exudes reasonable suspicion that she's illegal, that charges cannot be pursued against her because of her accent and skin color. And no, you wouldn't be able to sue them if they didn't haul her off. You, the lawyer, obviously know that your ridiculous situation would never even make it to trial. Even the most conservative Mexican hating judge would throw your theoretical case out on site.

The basis the Feds are asking for it to be struck down is the pre-emption doctrine - JollyRoger

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. In immigration matters, the courts have consistently held that this means that states may enact immigration-related laws that go as far as, but no further than, duly enacted federal laws, except in areas where Congress has specifically preempted state action. Congress has not preempted state or local action regarding any of the federal laws that the new Arizona law seeks to enforce, so long as the state law goes no further than existing federal law. The Arizona law was drafted meticulously to ensure that it complies fully with the U.S. Constitution and with federal immigration laws. Simply because the state of Arizona will act on a law that emulates and mirrors federal law does not mean that the feds have Supremacy on the legal matter. The clause refers to law, not action. This law does not supersede or conflict with federal law, just their action....or lack their of.
 
No they don't. An innocent man cannot be imprisoned for x amount of years, but a person who has been found guilty of a crime, however, can be.

The different rights that the guilty and innocent enjoy isn't hard to grasp. Or perhaps you'd prefer the term "privileges"? Nitpicking over the exact term then.

Zelig has a point. In that same paragraph in the OP you were talking about people being stopped and confronted by police who presumably haven't been convicted yet. So where do convicted and imprisoned criminals come into this AZ issue?
 
You wouldn't measure that by the amount of tax income they produce. You measure someone's benefit to the economy based on the amount of work they do and its worth. Then, maybe, you measure the amount of money that someone spends.

Keep in mind, their benefit to the economy is not their wage. No good employer charges what they pay their employee, they charge what the employee is worth and then pocket the difference.

Maybe that economist-dude was taking other things into account as well. (The net benefit to economy line was a verbatim quote from the article.) Point is, the majority over pay their taxes and don't get all the benefits from their payment, contrary to popular belief.

For a guy that usually has solid arguments to bring to the table you're really coming up weak sauce tonight. I don't care that they increased by 17%, or deportations increased by 40,000 compared to the same period from the previous year, they are not making any effort to uphold their constitutional duties. If the feds decided to enforce freedom of speech like they enforce immigration laws we'd all be screwed. They could increase deportations by 200% and still not be making a dent.

I don't understand how you can say they are not making any effort, especially in AZ, when the numbers show a recent increase in deportations--a single but important variable--in AZ as well as nationally. Surely that is some sort of effort, contrary to the talking point that the feds are sitting on their hands.
 
Top Bottom