Turnover of AZ Law...

[JohnnyD]

What do you guys think? Now that I've learned about the ignore function, the first person to randomly spin this into an Obama post goes on the list.

I'll tell you though, the one thing that has me happy about the AZ law being turned over is this:



I'm glad I can still get my burritos.

[spence]

I think the debate is poisoned by the partisan nature of politics, especially in the current times.

The GOP power base has declared that there's really no room for tolerance on immigration issues. McCain, Bush 43 etc... were all hammered by their own party for taking a pragmatic position.

This has let the nut jobs mingle with the Republicans. I do think many pushing the AZ law were motivated by racism and a sense of stopping a Hispanic invasion.

That's not to say that there are reasonable AZ folks who support the law. Certainly there's a sense of outrage and that the Federal government isn't doing enough to stop the problem, and this is a National issue.

Obama's general policy position doesn't seem to be all that far from Bush. And recent reports seem to indicate he's been even more aggressive in cracking down on illegals.

Under Obama, More Illegal Immigrants Sent Home : NPR

I'd think people should be giving Obama credit for his success during these trying times.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama's general policy position doesn't seem to be all that far from Bush. And recent reports seem to indicate he's been even more aggressive in cracking down on illegals.

Under Obama, More Illegal Immigrants Sent Home : NPR

I'd think people should be giving Obama credit for his success during these trying times.

-spence

It appears that you have qualified for JohnnyD's ignore list.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It appears that you have qualified for JohnnyD's ignore list.

Not at all. Citing relevant facts isn't random in the least...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd think people should be giving Obama credit for his success during these trying times.

-spence

This is a relevant fact?

[scottw]

trying times? ...I thought this was "Recovery Summer"

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not to say that there are reasonable AZ folks who support the law.

-spence

come out from under your rock, the law is supported by the majority of Americans!

[scottw]

I'm glad to see that illegals have finally emerged from the shadows and are standing up for their rights to remain here illegally......and that the Federal Government under the direction of,...well.... you know who, will put their boot on the throat of any state that tries to protect itself and it's legal citizens from a foreign invasion of this type.....this is definitely progress and sends a great message to the foreign invaders who ignore our laws....

[JohnnyD]

This was an interesting opinion on the law that I saw earlier today. Can't say I know a whole lot about the details of how the feds are suppose to compensate states:

-Federal government is supposed to compensate AZ for the stress on their infrastructure/free health care and hospital visits/free schooling and other %$%$%$%$ they pay for with all the illegals gobbling up the social services.

-Federal government does not compensate nearly enough to cover even a fraction of the burden these illegals cause the state.

-State taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill. I'm sorry but an illegal getting paid under the table does not contribute a single dime to the state coffers (In case some of you failed high school economics)

So Arizona does the only thing they can which is pass their own law and take matters into their own hands. It has nothing to do with racism, not a single damn thing. The states out here on the west coast are already hurting thanks to the housing downturn and subsequent recession due to rampant speculation at all levels of our financial world and that's all AZ needs is to go completely bankrupt and down the %$%$%$%$ter even more due to a bunch of freeloaders.

Go watch the south park episode that started the famous quote "They took our jobs!" "Der derker derrrr!" and realize this has absolutely zero to do with racial bias or latinos and moreso with freeloading social services at the expense of the state.

[striperman36]

It seems like every state has similar issues with the freebies people take advantage of, unlike us taxpayers.

I forgot to declare all my earnings on my tax report, Fine or jail

I don't have health insurance, fine or lien on my property , wages

etc....

[detbuch]

To get back to JohnnyD's Q, Mark Levin argues that Judge Bolton reached a pre-determined decision. I know, I know, Levin is biased. Aren't we all?

He says that the Judge stated the correct legal standard, then ignored it and applied the test in a way completely divorced from the facts in the case.

First, she stated correctly that a facial challenge seeking a preliminary injunction requires the plaintiff (Federal Gov.) to demonstrate that the Arizona law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument--yet that is exactly what she relied on in her ruling, that the AZ law will impose an impermissible burden on law enforcement. She does not provide any empirical basis to support her conclusion--only pure supposition.

She cites a Supreme Court case "U.S. vs Salerno" where she notes: a facial challenge must fail where a statute has a plainly legitimate sweep." And in deciding a facial challenge, courts "must be careful not to go beyond the statute's facial requirements and speculate about 'hypothetical' or imagionary cases." Then she doesn't even attempt to analyze the provisions she overturns except for one she upheld. She doesn't distinguish the facial challenge from an as-applied challenge--at one point engaging in the hypothetical example of a potential unfair burden on a legal alien failing to have a dog on a leash fearing that he might be detained and subject to an impermissible burden for not carrying his papers. But the test is that it actually has to happen, not that it might happen. She also worries that increasing the time one is detained while his status is being checked might be unconstitutional--again, pure speculation, and contrary to what the First Circuit Court of Appeals already decided--such delay is permissible when there is reasonable suspicion. She largely ignores the Arizona Statute's saying that law enforcement officers can only confirm legal status where there is reaonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

She violates another Supreme Court decision in "Hines vs. Davidowitz" where a Pennsylvania law was struck down because it put in place its own immigration law. The Hines Court concluded that a State law is invalid when it is an "obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." The AZ statute does not create an entire new law, but merely complements the Federal statutes. If anything, Hines supports AZ.

Bolton does not provide substantive analysis of the high standards required for a successful facial challenge. She thinks certain events or difficulties will occur and substitutes those thoughts for empirical evidence. AZ doesn't create any new or added Federal responsibilities. It doesn't establish any new or inconsistent obligations on legal or illegal aliens, and doesn't create any new or extra forms, procedures, or other obligations for aliens.

Respecting preemption, the substantive core of the Federal Government's case, Bolton shows no evidence to conclude that AZ is likely to fail on inquiring into the legal status, or that it will impermissibly interfere with the Federal Government's allocation of resources. AZ isn't requiring the Fed. Gov. to do anything. The Federal Government can choose not to take Arizona's calls. Nor does AZ preempt Federal law. It does not create a new regime. Actually, longstanding Federal Law practice encourages states to assist in enforcing Federal immigration law.

[Raven]

if you had a magic wand ...........

and with one sweep suddenly deported every single illegal alien
never to return.............

the economy would crash so hard it could never recover.

[FishermanTim]

Originally Posted by Raven

if you had a magic wand ...........

and with one sweep suddenly deported every single illegal alien
never to return.............

the economy would crash so hard it could never recover.

Maybe the Federal Governmeny might crash, since many of their programs are aimed at giving aid and support to those that can't/won't earn it for themselves and to support those that are not paying into the same system as the resident taxpaying population.

Yes it would affect the economy, but if the corresponding taxes we pay were lowered because we did not have to pay for all of the welfare programs geared toward illegal immigrants we might break even!

Of course, like the AZ judge, I don't have imperical evidence, just hypothetical mumbo-jumbo.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Raven

if you had a magic wand ...........

and with one sweep suddenly deported every single illegal alien
never to return.............

the economy would crash so hard it could never recover.

let's give it a shot and see what happens the economic forcast is pretty bleak, we could just pull an Obama if it fails and claim that things would have "been even worse" if we'd not done it

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Raven

if you had a magic wand ...........

and with one sweep suddenly deported every single illegal alien
never to return.............

the economy would crash so hard it could never recover.

Originally Posted by scottw

let's give it a shot and see what happens the economic forcast is pretty bleak, we could just pull an Obama if it fails and claim that things would have "been even worse" if we'd not done it

Gotta agree with scottw. With the amount of money spent for social services, increased law enforcement, insurance costs due to crime and free hospital care, it'd be tough to convince me that we wouldn't see a net-benefit.

Here's an old study:

The Center for Immigration Studies reported in 2004: "Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household."[

And that's just the cost to the federal government. Also, the illegal problem has increased significantly since 2002.

Here are some numbers for the County of Los Angeles:

Michael D. Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor for the 5th District, announced in August 2009: "Figures from the Department of Public Social Services show that children of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County collected nearly $22 million in welfare and over $26 million in food stamps in June 2009. Projected over a 12 month period, this would exceed $575 million dollars. Annually the cost of illegal immigration to Los Angeles County taxpayers exceeds $1 billion dollars, which includes $350 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $500 million in welfare and food stamps allocations. Twenty-four percent of the County’s total allotment of welfare and food stamp benefits goes directly to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States."

How about:

Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration.[

I'd gladly give up 1% of my wealth to be rid of the problems that come with illegal immigration.

Then there's the cost to states to give these people who have no respect for our laws an education:

Using the U.S. INS statistics on how many illegal immigrants are residing in each state and the U.S. Dept of Education's current expenditure per pupil by state, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, known for its anti-illegal alien stance, has estimated cost of educating illegal alien students was as follows:[27]
State Illegal Alien Students
California $3,220,200,000
Texas $1,645,400,000
New York $1,306,300,000
Illinois $834,000,000
New Jersey $620,200,000
For all 50 states $11,919,900,000

...

During April 2006, Standard & Poor's analysts wrote: "Local school districts are estimated to educate 1.8 million undocumented children. At an average annual cost of $7,500 (averages vary by jurisdiction) per student, the cost of providing education to these children is about $11.2 billion."[

But, I'm just a crazy moonbat liberal...

[Raven]

it's the labor end of it..... i'm referring to

you'd better learn to grow and pick your own food....

because the pickers would all be gone

and most white Americans (or non latino's)
wouldn't fill their shoes....

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Gotta agree with scottw. With the amount of money spent for social services, increased law enforcement, insurance costs due to crime and free hospital care, it'd be tough to convince me that we wouldn't see a net-benefit.

Here's an old study:

And that's just the cost to the federal government. Also, the illegal problem has increased significantly since 2002.

Here are some numbers for the County of Los Angeles:

How about:

I'd gladly give up 1% of my wealth to be rid of the problems that come with illegal immigration.

Then there's the cost to states to give these people who have no respect for our laws an education:

But, I'm just a crazy moonbat liberal...

+1 (not the moonbat liberal part)

[detbuch]

Seriously, on the other hand, "the economy" was strong before the influx of millions of illegals and would be strong if they left--if it is allowed to function as a free market. Free market innovations respond to economic crises more productively, and more durably, than government intervention. An economy that evolves freely from the bottom up, as a result of competition between the numerous entrepeneurs is a thriving, growing, wealthy economy, as opposed to top-down, planned economies concocted by a small cadre of like minded rulers. Mao's "let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend" was a wonderful idea, and a bottom-up way to evolve his society. Unfortunately, he promptly executed any flower or thinker that competed with his one, top-down way.

[Joe]

If we wiped out illegal immigration with a magic wand, the interior of my house would instantly turn to squalor and I'd magically appear at Wal-Mart with a cart full of Top Job and Bounty Paper Towels.

[spence]

Who?

-spence

[Raven]

WHY? is it acceptable to say BALLS in Spanish on national radio/Tv
as Sarah Palin has just done in reference to OBAMA not having any

she could have said he ............ doesn't own a pair

his boys are hiding behind the couch or something similar

there is such a disparity of wanting non english speaking persons
within America to learn English and to speak it fluently
not to have street signs in spanish ........yada, yada, yada...(Sinfeld)

but ..... when people like politicians wanna say BALLS
or anything else off color........
they just substitute Cahones or another spanish word..?

or BIG brass .....well you know what i mean...

i don't get this double standard

it's a mystery, i'm telling ya

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Raven;785960]WHY? is it acceptable to say BALLS in Spanish on national radio/Tv
as Sarah Palin has just done in reference to OBAMA not having any

it's sexy when she talks that way and most experts agree with her

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Who?

-spence

Spence Krugman

Nobel Prize Winner....for all that's worth...