PeteAtoms
FormulaRandom
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?
A majority of economists agree illegal immigration is a net benefit to the US economy.
Contrary to popular belief, many (most?) illegal immigrants pay taxes and get nothing back. They also may be bolstering Social Security to the tune of a $7 billion subsidy each year in free money.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
First, immigration enforcement really is a federal issue exclusively. Nothing a state can do really changes this.
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.
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.[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.
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.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.
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).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.
Yes they do.
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?
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
The basis the Feds are asking for it to be struck down is the pre-emption doctrine - JollyRoger
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.
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.
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.