Arizona immigration law

[Fleeman93]

I'm not sure and really don't care, they both sux.

I'll tell you what I would do however. First, I would have some sort of worker program, along the lines of a green card but with a worker permit. That gets them on the tax rolls. Second, I would do one more amnesty for those born here (I know that is controversial but that is what I believe our Constitution says). Third, I would strictly enforce border security by SPENDING for additional border patrol, drones, all sorts of things to control illegal immigration. Fourth, I would work with the Mexican government to solve the problems they have so that fewer need/want to come here in the first place. One way is to legalize marijuana. Fifth, I would aggressively penalize the HELL out of every company found to hire illegals.

That's a start.

I would also fire Gov Perry (rhetorically speaking) for his pandering to Perry homes and others who want to continue the cheap labor.

All good points. I like the idea of setting up military training bases along the borders. Have our military go down there for training and also act as a deterrent to illegals getting in their way. I also like my idea of loading our drones up with basically paint balls loaded with the stuff they use to mark cash. If the drone spots people where they shouldn't be then light them up and they then become glow in the dark. I think it would be cheap and effective. A drone with infrared would work nicely.

I don't mind the idea of work permits but only after we solve the border problems and get rid of all illegals that are here now. Once that is done then issue the work permits if that's the case.

I agree on businesses. Basically make it know that no business will hire illegals and that would be contract or employees. Anyone caught will all but be put out of business with a certain number of infractions. Harsh, yes but I think it needs to be that way.

[drgnbkr]

The most important part of the law from Arizona's standpoint was upheld...that they could, after a valid stop or arrest, verify the immigration status of the perp. Many states will now follow suit.

[JagFan]

The most important part of the law from Arizona's standpoint was upheld...that they could, after a valid stop or arrest, verify the immigration status of the perp. Many states will now follow suit.

And get no help from the feds. Big Sis tells Arizona Drop Dead. That's mature and respectful of the constitution and our laws.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-agreements-/

[Fleeman93]

The most important part of the law from Arizona's standpoint was upheld...that they could, after a valid stop or arrest, verify the immigration status of the perp. Many states will now follow suit.

I'm thinking that is why Arizona is claiming a win and I agree.

[slcdragonfan]

All good points. I like the idea of setting up military training bases along the borders. Have our military go down there for training and also act as a deterrent to illegals getting in their way. I also like my idea of loading our drones up with basically paint balls loaded with the stuff they use to mark cash. If the drone spots people where they shouldn't be then light them up and they then become glow in the dark. I think it would be cheap and effective. A drone with infrared would work nicely.

I don't mind the idea of work permits but only after we solve the border problems and get rid of all illegals that are here now. Once that is done then issue the work permits if that's the case.

I agree on businesses. Basically make it know that no business will hire illegals and that would be contract or employees. Anyone caught will all but be put out of business with a certain number of infractions. Harsh, yes but I think it needs to be that way.

See, if we actually discuss points we can find common ground. 'pants is right, putting in place rules for contractors and subcontractors to be enforced by the original contractor add more government overhead. But with a worker program, each company is responsible for verifying their hires with a gummint issued worker visa. For citizens, we are supposed to supply the SSN. Things could be done that would be fairly unintrusive.

When I employed green card and H1B guys, I had to do verification and validation. Why not add the worker visas to that for people other than IT?

[Dawg82]

as I understand it, yes, once a person is stopped, then they can ask for papers. I'll know more tonight after the Newshour has their outstanding analyst explain the ramifications and intricacies of it. I strongly recommend the Newshour for an impartial review of these cases.

Good news post. Tends to do what news should do, and just report.

[slcdragonfan]

And get no help from the feds. Big Sis tells Arizona Drop Dead. That's mature and respectful of the constitution and our laws.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-agreements-/

I disagree with the Obama administration on this point.

However, there is precedent for the Feds to withhold funds from states that do not do their bidding, this is not an Obama thing only. It is done all the time. Feds are not obligated to spend their money with folks who do not bow to their requirements. Remember the speed limit laws to reduce gasoline consumption? Highway funds were withheld for those states that 'violated' that rule. EPA regulations? etc....

[Dawg82]

See, if we actually discuss points we can find common ground. 'pants is right, putting in place rules for contractors and subcontractors to be enforced by the original contractor add more government overhead. But with a worker program, each company is responsible for verifying their hires with a gummint issued worker visa. For citizens, we are supposed to supply the SSN. Things could be done that would be fairly unintrusive.

When I employed green card and H1B guys, I had to do verification and validation. Why not add the worker visas to that for people other than IT?

Costs us about $250K for each H1B, and we're limited. If the chance is taken, it's been the experience that 2 years later, they return to their home country.

[JagFan]

I disagree with the Obama administration on this point.

However, there is precedent for the Feds to withhold funds from states that do not do their bidding, this is not an Obama thing only. It is done all the time. Feds are not obligated to spend their money with folks who do not bow to their requirements. Remember the speed limit laws to reduce gasoline consumption? Highway funds were withheld for those states that 'violated' that rule. EPA regulations? etc....

I know every time Obama does something you prefer to discuss others. They were wrong to withhold funds but this is just a total ignoring of the law that they swore to uphold. Reminds me of my sons when they were two and didn't get their way. Thank God they have grown up.

[drgnbkr]

I disagree with the Obama administration on this point.

However, there is precedent for the Feds to withhold funds from states that do not do their bidding, this is not an Obama thing only. It is done all the time. Feds are not obligated to spend their money with folks who do not bow to their requirements. Remember the speed limit laws to reduce gasoline consumption? Highway funds were withheld for those states that 'violated' that rule. EPA regulations? etc....

As Justice Scalia said in his scathing dissent.."We should no longer refer to it as the sovereign state of Arizona". And yes, it is entirely an Obama thing..Just as fast and furious is his mess to deal with.

[Fleeman93]

And get no help from the feds. Big Sis tells Arizona Drop Dead. That's mature and respectful of the constitution and our laws.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-agreements-/

So basically Obama and the Obama administration are being cry babies when it comes to Arizona upholding a Supreme Court decision. Certainly not the kind of administration I want leading my country. Obama and his administration are basically saying that they will dictate how illegal immigration is enforced based on what they want (votes) and that is flat out BS.

[JagFan]

So basically Obama and the Obama administration are being cry babies when it comes to Arizona upholding a Supreme Court decision. Certainly not the kind of administration I want leading my country. Obama and his administration are basically saying that they will dictate how illegal immigration is enforced based on what they want (votes) and that is flat out BS.

Yup. I agree.

[slcdragonfan]

Costs us about $250K for each H1B, and we're limited. If the chance is taken, it's been the experience that 2 years later, they return to their home country.

Mine converted to green card and is living in the Chicago area as a project manager, with two kids born here and a contributing tax-payer. Good guy.

But yeah, H1B is not the great deal it is implied to be, especially if they actually know something.

[slcdragonfan]

I know every time Obama does something you prefer to discuss others. They were wrong to withhold funds but this is just a total ignoring of the law that they swore to uphold. Reminds me of my sons when they were two and didn't get their way. Thank God they have grown up.

And you know why I do that? Because most folks want to blame a particular party or being 'lib' or some other such nonsense. I am pointing out this strategy has been used by conservatives and Republicans alike. Those who act so dismayed now, I wonder how they reacted back then when the shoe was on the other foot.

No matter though, in this case I think the Obama administration is wrong.

[Tom]

And you know why I do that? Because most folks want to blame a particular party or being 'lib' or some other such nonsense. I am pointing out this strategy has been used by conservatives and Republicans alike. Those who act so dismayed now, I wonder how they reacted back then when the shoe was on the other foot.

No matter though, in this case I think the Obama administration is wrong.

Just the same, I wonder if Scalia would be so consistent about his belief in federalism if this were about, say, federal labor laws that the federal government wasn't bothering to enforce and a state wanted to step in and enforce those laws.

(Though, I think immigration law is clearly a federal issue... there's nothing in the Constitution giving states the right to decide who can and cannot live within their borders.)

[Fleeman93]

So I'm curious. Does federal law or the constitution or whatever say that illegal immigrants should be deported or not?

[Tom]

Good points all around on this.

It relates to a story a friend of mine told me about growing up in D.C. in the 1980s. Until the government extended liability to stores for selling alcohol to minors, you could basically buy alcohol anywhere even if you were underage. The stores figured... well, I know 19-year-olds can't legally drink, but what's the loss to me if I sell beer to one? And of course the 19-year-olds weren't going to abstain from drinking just because it was illegal for them.

So, from the perspective of the illegal immigrant, yeah, it's illegal for you to be in this country. But you can rent an apartment, because the leasing agent has no incentive not to rent to you (assuming you can afford the rent), and you can get a job because the employer has no incentive not to hire you. As long as you can stay off the grid and avoid attracting the attention of the feds, you can stay in the country as long as you want.

And even if you DO get nabbed and get deported, the leasing agent can still rent your apartment to another illegal, and your employer can just hire another illegal... so, deporting a few illegals does nothing to solve the problem. Just as busting a few minors with alcohol did nothing to stop more minors from getting alcohol back in the 1980s.

[Dawg82]

So I'm curious. Does federal law or the constitution or whatever say that illegal immigrants should be deported or not?

The Constitution states the CIC will enforce all laws and the Constitution. In direct answer to your question, yes, current laws say they shouldn't be even allowed in the first place. Regardless of humanitarian measures and thoughts/rationalizations, until the policy/law is modified by Congress, the CIC is directed by Oath to enforce what's on the books.

Oops...

This is the sticking point. The fight is actually between branches of government. This is how the Founders envisioned it. This is what keeps America from becoming a dictatorship.

[slcdragonfan]

Just the same, I wonder if Scalia would be so consistent about his belief in federalism if this were about, say, federal labor laws that the federal government wasn't bothering to enforce and a state wanted to step in and enforce those laws.

(Though, I think immigration law is clearly a federal issue... there's nothing in the Constitution giving states the right to decide who can and cannot live within their borders.)

or maybe about eminent domain, say for example a city can condemn your property because somebody else wants it and will pay more taxes to the municipality/state on it? oops....

[Fleeman93]

The Constitution states the CIC will enforce all laws and the Constitution. In direct answer to your question, yes, current laws say they shouldn't be even allowed in the first place. Regardless of humanitarian measures and thoughts/rationalizations, until the policy/law is modified by Congress, the CIC is directed by Oath to enforce what's on the books.

Oops...

This is the sticking point. The fight is actually between branches of government. This is how the Founders envisioned it. This is what keeps America from becoming a dictatorship.

So in a dumbed down nutshell, the US constitution says that illegals should be deported but the federal government doesn't want to uphold the constitution?