Turnover of AZ Law...

[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....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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....

But that would be an opportunity for another government bailout--to save the growing and picking industry. Another stimulus package, perhaps, of about $800 billion, to allow the growing and picking industry to raise their wages and hire white Americans. An adequate amount of that money could be used to buy, say, 60% of the stock in the growing and picking industry as a government investment. This would ensure that the growing and picking industry would continue to adhere to the higher wages necessary to employ white Americans and would also give government the power to demand the correct quality of produce and working conditions. Government owning, er, having the major share of the industry could favor it over cheaper imports from third world countries, creating a sort of People's monopoly on something so essential as food--similar to the coming Health Care. The benevolent government will ensure that We the People have the best food, the best health, the best cars, and the best of whatever else may fail and needs to be restored with stimulus. And what remains of the $800 billion could be set aside for future election, er, investment and recovery purposes. The crashed economy resulting from deportation of illegals would be a smashing opportunity not to waste a crisis.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by detbuch

would be a smashing opportunity not to waste a crisis.

~
i see the opportunity of Katrina's damage and of this gulf oil spill
as two "smashing opportunities" having gone to waste thus far.

Seems to me that the response to foreign disasters always takes precedence and even gets a more rapid response....from the feds.

the whole cutting of straight channels in the Marshland (which has resulted in making it disappear) and the Levies built by the army corps of engineers as the biggest blunders
in modern history.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Another stimulus package, perhaps, of about $800 billion, to allow the growing and picking industry to raise their wages and hire white Americans.

Why should they raise their wages?

Clearly the free market as found level in the form of hard working laborers, reasonable margins and a product that's affordable for consumers.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by 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....

I buy as much of my produce locally as I can. It tastes better, is better for you and doesn't have all the trash sprayed on it like industrial vegetables. A little bit of research goes a long way in seeing what companies pay a fair (meaning legal) wage.

I'd much rather pay more for my food and allow governments to subsidize farmers in this country to pay legal Americans a fair wage, than to have those same farmers pay illegals to pick vegetables below minimum wage and then send that money back to their home country. Hell, if they want to go through the appropriate avenues to become a legal citizen and work in the fields, I fully support that.

Also, one possible resolution to a potential lack of willing field works are convicts. Make arrangements with farmers for non-violent, well-behaved prisoners to work on the farms and put those people to constructive use- states already use prisoners to clean trash from the highways.

With millions of unemployed legal American citizens, the excuse of "they work the jobs that Americans don't want" to validate reasons for allowing border-hoppers to stay here is shameful.

Originally Posted by detbuch

But that would be an opportunity for another government bailout--to save the growing and picking industry. Another stimulus package, perhaps, of about $800 billion, to allow the growing and picking industry to raise their wages and hire white Americans. An adequate amount of that money could be used to buy, say, 60% of the stock in the growing and picking industry as a government investment. And the rest could be set aside for future election, er, investment and recovery purposes. The crashed economy resulting from deportation of illegals would be a smashing opportunity not to waste a crisis.

Completely off topic and nonsense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Completely off topic and nonsense.

Off topic??? Which topic--the ignore function--debate poisoned by partisan politics--the Arizona law--Feds compensating States--similar issues with freebies--people should be giving Obama credit--trying times--magic wand--crashed economy--etc.? My nonsense addressed some of those, in an intentionally nonnsensical way, tying in the overall ongoing political nonsense of which the Federal District court's decision to stay the AZ law is nonsensical part of.

Also, I apologize for editing the post that you quote at the same time that you were responding to it. So your response does not have my full post, which is more nonsense, so it doesn't matter.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

With millions of unemployed legal American citizens, the excuse of "they work the jobs that Americans don't want" to validate reasons for allowing border-hoppers to stay here is shameful.

You are right on, JD. Seems as if it's "below" a lot of people to get their
hands dirty.

Does anyone know out of the 10-11million illegals here actually work on farms or
for commercial fruit and vegetable growers???

Being it is seasonal work, are they collecting unemployment off season?

[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)

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by 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

Spencism Alert, some commonality, some partisanism, some sprinkling of whackjobs associating with other party, followed by some redirection. Love ya kid, but sometimes you really make me chuckle

Support for AZ law:

May 2010 WSJ/MNC: First Read - Poll: Nearly two-thirds back AZ law

From NBC's Mark Murray

Nearly two-thirds back AZ law.

Here's another set of numbers from the new NBC/WSJ poll we're teasing:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans back Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law, which makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. The law also requires local and state law enforcement officials to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they're in the country illegally.

Sixty-four percent favor this law, while 34 percent oppose it. But those numbers are essentially reversed among Latinos -- with 70 percent of them opposing the law, and only 27 percent supporting it.

Even though almost two-thirds of the public supports Arizona's law, nearly an identical number (66 percent) believe it will lead to the discrimination of Latino immigrants who reside in the U.S. legally.

Gallup April 29: More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona's new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it.

I'd put more numbers in but they do images of the poll -v- text )

CNN - couple days ago:

CNN poll: Most back Arizona law but cite concerns about effects

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* Fifty-five percent of those polled say they favor Arizona's immigration law
* Fifty percent say it will not reduce illegal immigration
* Arizona law is set to go into effect Thursday
* Critics say law will lead to racial profiling; supporters say its aim is to enforce federal law

Washington (CNN) -- Most Americans support Arizona's new law on illegal immigration, but according to a national poll, a majority think the controversial measure will increase discrimination against Hispanics while not necessarily making a dent in the problem.

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey also indicates that Hispanic and whites don't see eye to eye over the law.

Numbers roughly in line with that biased Rasmussen:

Opposed to the DOJ challenging the AZ law:

56% Oppose Justice Department Challenge of Arizona Law; 61% Favor Similar Law In Their State
Thursday, July 08, 2010

Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.

These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Spencism Alert, some commonality, some partisanism, some sprinkling of whackjobs associating with other party, followed by some redirection. Love ya kid, but sometimes you really make me chuckle

I don't buy the polls, or at least don't think the really reinforce the point.

The polls do a poor job of breaking out how much people really understand about the bill or the issue. While many say they support the bill, they also say they believe it will lead to increased discrimination of legal aliens and citizens.

Why would people support a bill they think will lead to more discrimination?

Because the polls are probably more reflective of the fact that people just want the government to do more, rather than specific endorsement for the more controversial elements of the AZ legislation.

-spence