US Gov't Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law

Bugfatty300 said:

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?

Click to expand...

I imagine if they're in jail already, they can be screened and dealt with - deported - accordingly.

Though it's probably cheaper just to lock illegals up, considering they'll just try again... and then all that money will be wasted to catch them again, deport them again, and then the cycle repeats. Short of putting a large, impossible-to-remove tattoo on convicted illegal immigrants so they're recognised immediately(never mind that you'd hear "h00mun riiights!! "), the constant catching and deportation cycle is too expensive compared to alternatives.

And even more cheaper I imagine to get rid of the circumstances that cause them to come: make it easier for Americans to compete with them, punish employers more harshly if they hire illegals, etc.

Merkinball said:

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.

Click to expand...

A motion to dismiss as a matter of law by the officer would not work, so the officer could not prevent it from going to trial. The only way it would not make it to trial is if I prevailed on a motion for summary judgment since the text of the law would be on my side. You are not suggesting that judges should ignore the law and not allow it to be enbforced as written?

Merkinball said:

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.

Click to expand...

That kind of reasoning didn't work for the states in the medical malpractice arena, but maybe it will work for Arizona if the conservatives on the Court get wooed by the siren call of results-driven inconsistency.

Merkinball said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your counter-argument makes no sense as states do have the ability to defend themselves. And if states started instituting Jim Crow laws, you would see a repeat of the federal government calling up forces to desegregate.

Just because the Feds are woefully deficient doesn't mean anything legally. Legally all that matters is whether the Federal Government has jurisdiction over immigration or not, and whether or not the AZ law interferes with that jurisdiction (if they have it).

AZ cops just need to let one illegal immigrant criminal (they exist don't they?) run loose, and they can freely go around profiling because the other Mexicans "fit the description" of the criminal. Throw in a few vague wanted posters, and we're good to go.

The fact is the federal government is going to win this case.

Karalysia said:

The fact is the federal government is going to win this case.

Click to expand...

You think so?

Karalysia said:

The fact is the federal government is going to win this case.

Click to expand...

Sadly this is true. It's also sad to see a state being sued by the government. Pretty much: "America sues itself"

MobBoss said:

You think so?

Click to expand...

Yes. If it goes to SCOTUS 5-4 or 6-3. Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Sotamayer, Kennedy and maybe Roberts since while he's a conservative activist judge he's still less of a whackjob than Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

The federal government has the stronger case and a clear advantage, the best argument that the state can make is fairly weak. Any federal court would be hard-pressed to uphold it. Everything I've seen indicates that the federal government is most likely to get a favorable outcome on this case.

Nate Silver said well what the issue with the law is:

that the law would charge legal immigrants with trespassing for failure to carry documentation papers (although -- note -- this is already required under federal law); that it would give law enforcement officers new powers of detention (rather than mere "verification"); that it would allow officers, without a warrant, to arrest people who they suspected might be guilty of offenses that could lead to deportation, and that it would prohibit certain types of work-for-hire involving moving vehicles.

Click to expand...

_ Makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally by specifically requiring immigrants to have proof of their immigration status. Violations are a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Repeat offenses would be a felony.
_ Requires police officers to "make a reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of a person if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that he or she is an illegal immigrant. Race, color or national origin may not be the only things considered in implementation. Exceptions can be made if the attempt would hinder an investigation.
_ Allow lawsuits against local or state government agencies that have policies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws. Would impose daily civil fines of $1,000-$5,000. There is pending follow-up legislation to halve the minimum to $500.
_ Targets hiring of illegal immigrants as day laborers by prohibiting people from stopping a vehicle on a road to offer employment and by prohibiting a person from getting into a stopped vehicle on a street to be hired for work if it impedes traffic.

Click to expand...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/arizona

Your counter-argument makes no sense as states do have the ability to defend themselves. - Moss

Click to expand...

Yes they do. The National Guard belongs to the state and are at the direction of state governors. The Navy Militia belongs to the state. The states have the ability to muster militias.

And if states started instituting Jim Crow laws, you would see a repeat of the federal government calling up forces to desegregate. - Moss

Click to expand...

No. I specifically picked a situation in which the federal government was derelict in their constitutional obligations. The federal government is currently ignoring its duties to secure our border, in my situation the federal government was willfully ignoring the 14th amendment.

A motion to dismiss as a matter of law by the officer would not work, so the officer could not prevent it from going to trial. - JollyRoger

Click to expand...

You're right. The officer couldn't do squat. But a judge would. You'd just waste your money on legal fees.

The only way it would not make it to trial is if I prevailed on a motion for summary judgment since the text of the law would be on my side. You are not suggesting that judges should ignore the law and not allow it to be enbforced as written? - JR

Click to expand...

Oh, of course they shouldn't ignore the law. You running up and down the street, or pointing at your maid, is not reasonable suspicion to invoke investigation according to the law. I don't know how many times, how many officials, and how many people have expressed that there are protections in the law to prevent erroneous crap like this. Which is why your lawsuit against the cop for not enforcing the law would go nowhere.

AZ cops just need to let one illegal immigrant criminal (they exist don't they?) run loose, and they can freely go around profiling because the other Mexicans "fit the description" of the criminal. - PeteAdams

Click to expand...

No, there are legal protections against this sort of action.

The federal government has the stronger case and a clear advantage - Karalysia

Click to expand...

The federal government has no legitimate case, as the law does not supersede federal law. It is merely a replication of the federal law that the federales are not executing.

MobBoss said:

Do you really think farmers need fewer illegal migrant workers to pick crops? Sure there is a recession, however, the kind of jobs illegals do arent the ones being lost.

Click to expand...

Actually, they were among the first to be lost (Manual Labor).


But hell, I'm just an economist. What do I know about job reports?

Taniciusfox said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am fairly certain that innocent people have been imprisoned. Innocence Project, for example, and that deals with death row inmates.

@Merk

Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so. Where's your law citations? As best as I can tell from reading the law on the subject, pre-emption argument is likely to hold.

I refuse to classify illegal immigrants as criminals. What the Border States do need to do is to make it easy for individuals outside of the US border (Mexico and other Central American States) to get cheaper identification cards to prove that they are here, and willfully to be documented, for the reason to work here temporarily. And if they want to stay permanently, they need to be allowed to do so as long as they have reached an easy mandatory requirement (like 5 years of employment records as proof that they were here working legally) for full citizenship.

Merkinball said:

You're right. The officer couldn't do squat. But a judge would. You'd just waste your money on legal fees.

Click to expand...

A judge has to follow the law. An officer's motion to dismiss should be reject under the law while my motion for a judgment as a matter of law should arguably prevail. Worst case scenario for me, assumingthe judge is following the law as written is thatit goes to trial.

Merkinball said:

Oh, of course they shouldn't ignore the law. You running up and down the street, or pointing at your maid, is not reasonable suspicion to invoke investigation according to the law. I don't know how many times, how many officials, and how many people have expressed that there are protections in the law to prevent erroneous crap like this. Which is why your lawsuit against the cop for not enforcing the law would go nowhere.

Click to expand...

Let's say my American citizen maid calls the cops for me hitting her. Cop shows up, maid is acting very emotional and clamoring away in Polish or very thickly accented English. Cop, initially investigating the domestic abuse asks me my side. I tell him that she just called them because she was angry that I threatened to turn her over to immigration. She has evidence that she could have been hit by me, but it could also be seen as self-inficted. I have a cut on my hand and there is a knife with a Polish flag engraved in the handle, meaning it may also be a reasonable inference that I acted in self defense. If the officer doesn't further investigate her status, I could rightfully sue him under Arizona law. If she can't produce proof of being lawfully in the country, the cop should haul her off to ICE under Arizona law.

JerichoHill said:

Actually, they were among the first to be lost (Manual Labor).

Click to expand...

I would have thought those among the least lost. Food still has to be harvested after all.

Banking, auto industry, and other retail/factory/low level corporate jobs would have been first during a recession like this. But not farming. If anything, during such periods, people buy more produce and eat at home as opposed to going out to eat simply in order to save money.

But hey, I am just a middle class consumer. What do I know.

To me, arguments about immigration in countries of the new world (USA, Australia, NZ etc) are rather laughable. Pretty much all of our ancestors are immigrants, most of them unwelcome (or illegal) as far as the native inhabitants of those countries were concerned. To now say "oh, now we don't want any more immigrants" is both hypocritical and a betrayal of the ideals these countries are founded on:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Click to expand...

As an aside, it's important to note that immigrants consume as well as earn - consider, would it be better if 1000 mexicans worked in a factory in mexico, or if they worked in a factory in california, spending much of their paychecks buying food, clothing and other necessities of living from local stores?

Gangor said:

To me, arguments about immigration in countries of the new world (USA, Australia, NZ etc) are rather laughable. Pretty much all of our ancestors are immigrants, most of them unwelcome (or illegal) as far as the native inhabitants of those countries were concerned. To now say "oh, now we don't want any more immigrants" is both hypocritical and a betrayal of the ideals these countries are founded on

Click to expand...

I don't think that's really why America was founded. But it was an ideal of most of the early American leaders. But your argument isn't very good. Just because our ancestors did something, doesn't make it right (or wrong), and can't be used as a justification for modern morals/policy.

JollyRoger said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think that such a scenario is already discouraged under civil law. Yes, the police officer would have to detain someone if you accused them of being a criminal. However, this would be slander; she'd have a tort against you. You're motivated to not do this, because she could sue you. And it would be very easy to show damages.

illram said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that economists find that illegal immigrants are boons to the economy. They certainly have the potential to contribute in many, many ways. My only point is that "being good for the government's books" is not the same thing as "being good for the economy". A person can be a net drain on government revenue, and still be a benefit to the economy. A police officer obviously will never pay in taxes what they 'take' from government coffers, but they can certainly benefit the economy!

If an illegal immigrant produces more value than they consume, then they're a net boon, I think. If the immigrant is working, then it's quite likely that they're producing quite a bit: hopefully an employer is getting good returns on the immigrants' work! If there was no net profit, the immigrant wouldn't have a job.

That said, illegal immigrant has a giant draining effect. Especially in terms of enforcement, I'd imagine. Every buck spent hunting down an illegal, detaining and prosecuting them, etc. could be saved if the illegal just hadn't been there.

I think it's obvious that they're a net drain on government coffers: especially if the employer is not paying taxes on the profits gained from the illegals' labour. However, that's not the only metric.

Gangor said:

To me, arguments about immigration in countries of the new world (USA, Australia, NZ etc) are rather laughable. Pretty much all of our ancestors are immigrants, most of them unwelcome (or illegal) as far as the native inhabitants of those countries were concerned. To now say "oh, now we don't want any more immigrants" is both hypocritical and a betrayal of the ideals these countries are founded on:

Click to expand...

Well some of our first and most famous white settlers were fleeing a system that didn't allow them to be intolerant enough, so one could argue this is as American as apple pie.

El_Machinae said:

I
I'm not surprised that economists find that illegal immigrants are boons to the economy. They certainly have the potential to contribute in many, many ways. My only point is that "being good for the government's books" is not the same thing as "being good for the economy". A person can be a net drain on government revenue, and still be a benefit to the economy. A police officer obviously will never pay in taxes what they 'take' from government coffers, but they can certainly benefit the economy!

If an illegal immigrant produces more value than they consume, then they're a net boon, I think. If the immigrant is working, then it's quite likely that they're producing quite a bit: hopefully an employer is getting good returns on the immigrants' work! If there was no net profit, the immigrant wouldn't have a job.

That said, illegal immigrant has a giant draining effect. Especially in terms of enforcement, I'd imagine. Every buck spent hunting down an illegal, detaining and prosecuting them, etc. could be saved if the illegal just hadn't been there.

I think it's obvious that they're a net drain on government coffers: especially if the employer is not paying taxes on the profits gained from the illegals' labour. However, that's not the only metric.

Click to expand...

You're right, tax revenue alone is not an indicator of a good economy. That was inaccurate in the article (the reporter probably misconstrued the professor) and inaccurate for me to repeat.

But, I think alot of people inaccurately think every illegal immigrant is skirting on their taxes and milking the system, when the opposite is true. That's also based on my own anecdotal experience with undocumented workers that I personally know, who pay a boatload of taxes.

And are, interestingly, conservative and would probably vote republican on a lot of issues...........

MobBoss said:

I would have thought those among the least lost. Food still has to be harvested after all.

Banking, auto industry, and other retail/factory/low level corporate jobs would have been first during a recession like this. But not farming. If anything, during such periods, people buy more produce and eat at home as opposed to going out to eat simply in order to save money.

But hey, I am just a middle class consumer. What do I know.

Click to expand...

Farming is a very small part of national employment. Millions of other low income jobs include construction, landscaping, maintenance, retail, restaurants, cleaning, ect.

El_Machinae said:

I think that such a scenario is already discouraged under civil law. Yes, the police officer would have to detain someone if you accused them of being a criminal. However, this would be slander; she'd have a tort against you. You're motivated to not do this, because she could sue you. And it would be very easy to show damages.

Click to expand...

A foreign-looking woman with a heavy accent trying to win a slander suit in front of an Arizona jury? I'd like my chances there.