Turnover of AZ Law...

[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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

this is Patrick Kennedy logic

[justplugit]

LOL, it's amazing how we all agree if a poll is going our way, but if
it doesn't we say it's flawed.
Ya have to look at a group of polls and look at the trend to see
if they are pointing in one direction or the other.

[Raven]

Poland is a long way to go for an opinion

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?
-spence

That the bill might lead to discrimination, or that people think it will, is not the test. As judge Bolton said, the Federal Government must demonstrate that the AZ law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument. (Of course, she contradicted her own directions and ruled on hypotheticals.) The fact is, almost any bill, or law can, and has led to accusations of discrimination. If the test for a law to exist is that it cannot potentially lead to "discrimination", a whole lot of ordinances have to be revoked.

The potential for a law to lead to discrimination does not necessarily lay in the law, but in its application by individual enforcers. The fault is usually not in the law, but in racially biased individuals. Rather than blaming and disavowing valuable law, when it is applied in a discriminatory fashion, the individual who misuses the law should be prosecuted--don't blame the law.

So it is not necessarily a contradiction if supporters of the AZ law think it might lead to discrimination but still support it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That the bill might lead to discrimination, or that people think it will, is not the test. As judge Bolton said, the Federal Government must demonstrate that the AZ law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical argument. (Of course, she contradicted her own directions and ruled on hypotheticals.) The fact is, almost any bill, or law can, and has led to accusations of discrimination. If the test for a law to exist is that it cannot potentially lead to "discrimination", a whole lot of ordinances have to be revoked.

The potential for a law to lead to discrimination does not necessarily lay in the law, but in its application by individual enforcers. The fault is usually not in the law, but in racially biased individuals. Rather than blaming and disavowing valuable law, when it is applied in a discriminatory fashion, the individual who misuses the law should be prosecuted--don't blame the law.

So it is not necessarily a contradiction if supporters of the AZ law think it might lead to discrimination but still support it.

In this case you have a target demographic that's pretty well defined and a law with the potential to impact the daily life of a very large number of legal citizens and non-citizens who appear to fit the profile.

I'd think the risk factor here is extremely high and more than a simple perhaps.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

In this case you have a target demographic that's pretty well defined

Yes. The target demographic is people who are here illegally.

and a law with the potential to impact the daily life of a very large number of legal citizens

Yes. It has the potential to improve the economic and safety issues of legal citizens.

and non-citizens who appear to fit the profile.

Only those who are here illegally. Some "potential" for discrimination, but that would also be illegal and "potential" cannot be a test for the law's validity.

I'd think the risk factor here is extremely high and more than a simple perhaps. -spence

Absolutely. There is an extremely high risk to illegal aliens.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

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.
-spence

Spence even CNN talking heads say 55 % of americans agree with the AZ law.

All Judge Bolton did was point out to Arizona lawmakers the three sections of the law that needs fine-tuning and the law would likely be enforceable. Ah, good old reasonable suspicion........................oops!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! When an officer of the law has reason to believe that a crime is about to be committed or has been committed.

[JohnR]

Hey, Spence, let me clear something out for you.

Yes, many Americans feel that there may be some potential increased discrimination but the majority of Americans recognize a few simple, easy to factor points:

1) If I am pulled over for potential illegal or suspicious activity I need to produce my identification - AND I WAS BORN here. Someone not here legally should not have a higher level of protection than those here legally.

2) People that are not citizens should go though proper LEGAL channels to become citizens. Ignoring the law when convenient is breaking the law.

3) There are more problems created by illegal citizens than legal citizens, be it law enforcement, costs and entitlements, taxes, etc.

Would love to type out more but going to bed.

Please give me three reasons why we are better off as we are now with porous borders?

[justplugit]

AMEN ,JR.
As Americans we should be Proud to show we are citizens of the United States especially since our ancestors waited their turn to come here legally, studied and became citizens,adopted the US to be their home and called themselves Americans and worked to make a better life for their families. No handouts.

Showing ID is no different then showing your voting registration card in order to have the ,privlidge to vote.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Showing ID is no different then showing your voting registration card in order to have the ,privlidge to vote.

funny that many of the same folks/groups that oppose the Arizona law also oppose any requirement to show an ID to vote....probably just a coincidence

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

1) If I am pulled over for potential illegal or suspicious activity I need to produce my identification - AND I WAS BORN here. Someone not here legally should not have a higher level of protection than those here legally.

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.

2) People that are not citizens should go though proper LEGAL channels to become citizens. Ignoring the law when convenient is breaking the law.

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

3) There are more problems created by illegal citizens than legal citizens, be it law enforcement, costs and entitlements, taxes, etc.

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

Please give me three reasons why we are better off as we are now with porous borders?

Again, that's not the point. The legal argument against the AZ law isn't that illegals are good for the country, I'd think only a very small minority would voice this opinion.

Although, you do seem to be proving the point I was trying to make.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.

-spence

National support is based on a desire and the overwhelming approval of a State taking action when the Feds refuse to.....the "controversial elements" that you describe are only controversial in the minds of illegals and their enablers...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.

And we need to legally provide proper documentation (Birt certs, Passports, SS card, various ID cards,in order to get the proper identification that 97% of us will show to a law enforcement officer should we run a foul of the law.

We also need to use said identification when applying tax forms when taking a new job.

Originally Posted by spence

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

The laws that are conspicuously not being followed / enforced?

Originally Posted by spence

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

And the proponents of this bill would argue that the lack of the Federal guvmint's involvement / success in enforcing existing laws.

Originally Posted by spence

Again, that's not the point. The legal argument against the AZ law isn't that illegals are good for the country, I'd think only a very small minority would voice this opinion.

Although, you do seem to be proving the point I was trying to make.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.

-spence

- I apologize, sometimes I have this habit of looking at this issue at the National as well as state aspect. I understand others ignore at the national level as well as the state level.

I do not see a problem with the state law that in its essence asks people to obey the law, and follow the law, or there will be the potential for consequences. As long as reasonable assurances for the respect for human rights can be maintained. This bill tries to put more teeth into fighting illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

I want more legal immigrants to come to this country and become Americans. Legal, pulling the same oar to help our kids get smarter, more entrepreneurial spirit, and to grow our nation, because that make sense and helps us to grow. Otherwise we become stagnant.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You have to show identification, not prove you're a citizen or legal alien. I don't see any difference in protection. What's at issue is jurisdiction and the presumption of guilt.

Jurisdiction is not an issue. Federal jurisdiction is not infringed. AZ law assists, does not usurp, the Federal Government in finding illegals. Actual guilt, not presumed guilt, is the target.

Any why we already have Federal laws to deal with this issue.

As JR says, the laws are not being properly enforced. Law without enforcement is law that does not exist. Normally, the Federal Government appreciates and encourages local assistance. It is, after all, so "overburdened." The AZ law actually makes the Federal law more meaningful by assisting in its enforcement.

That's not really the issue, it's about a State potentially usurping Federal law and the discrimination of legal citizens and legal aliens in doing so.

There is no possibility that the AZ law can "usurp" Federal law. Any state law that did so (not possible) would be struck down. The AZ law "usurps" no Federal law, no Federal power, no Federal action. It "potentially" assists the Federal Government. There is no special targeting of legal citizens or legal aliens. They are all subject to the same law enforcement. Any "potential" discrimination that occurs from improper enforcement is subject to reverse suits and monetary compensation.

That National support is based more on a desire for the Feds to do more rather than endorsement for the controversial elements of the bill.-spence

It's based on the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to do, rather than the Government doing a piss poor, less than half-hearted, job, and then rejecting help to do what it seems incapable of doing. Which controversial elements? What the Federal Government is doing and not doing, is extremely controversial.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jurisdiction is not an issue. Federal jurisdiction is not infringed. AZ law assists, does not usurp, the Federal Government in finding illegals. Actual guilt, not presumed guilt, is the target.

Not according to the Federal judge, who believe the AZ law interferes with the Feds ability to set and enforce a consistent policy.

That you disagree with that issue doesn't make it wrong, it's just an interpretation. I'm sure the higher courts will be chiming in soon.

As JR says, the laws are not being properly enforced. Law without enforcement is law that does not exist. Normally, the Federal Government appreciates and encourages local assistance. It is, after all, so "overburdened." The AZ law actually makes the Federal law more meaningful by assisting in its enforcement.

I would think a Conservative would argue that the solution is better Federal enforcement, rather than additional legislation that will increase the size of government through State mandates which also may burden local law enforcement.

There is no possibility that the AZ law can "usurp" Federal law. Any state law that did so (not possible) would be struck down. The AZ law "usurps" no Federal law, no Federal power, no Federal action. It "potentially" assists the Federal Government. There is no special targeting of legal citizens or legal aliens. They are all subject to the same law enforcement. Any "potential" discrimination that occurs from improper enforcement is subject to reverse suits and monetary compensation.

Interfering with Federal priorities and could be construed as the same thing. If the Feds want to focus on drugs, and the local Sheriff is rounding up a hundred day workers to hand over to ICE, you might just have a resource issue.

It's based on the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to do, rather than the Government doing a piss poor, less than half-hearted, job, and then rejecting help to do what it seems incapable of doing. Which controversial elements? What the Federal Government is doing and not doing, is extremely controversial.

So the answer again is to focus on more stringent Federal enforcement which Obama appears to be doing.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

So the answer again is to focus on more stringent Federal enforcement which Obama appears to be doing.

-spence

you are too funny....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you are too funny....

I'd have to note, you and my six year old have something in common. Neither of you really cares about the posts, but both love the emoticons

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Not according to the Federal judge, who believe the AZ law interferes with the Feds ability to set and enforce a consistent policy.

That you disagree with that issue doesn't make it wrong, it's just an interpretation. I'm sure the higher courts will be chiming in soon.

This is just a forum discussion on JohnnyD's Q. Discussion of what the judge decided should include her opinions and their merit. I am not disagreeing with an issue, I am commenting on the propriety of her statements and the egregious disagreements she has with her own instructions.

The Executive Branch primarily asserts that provisions in the AZ ammendments to its already existing law are preempted by Federal law.

The judge states that federal preemption can be either express or implied.

And that there are two types of implied:

FIELD PREEMPTION--where the depth and breadth of a congressional scheme occupies the legislative field. She briefly alludes to the Congress as being the only legitimate author of immigration law, but so much of her rhetoric seems to imply that the Executive branch has that power. It only has such power as delegated to it by Congress. In many instances Congress has expressed a concurrent responsibility between the States and the Federal government in enforcing the immigration laws. It is the intent of Congress, not the Executive branch that should be addressed. It is the Congress that authorized the Executive agencies dealing with immigration (DOJ, DHS, DOS). She dishonestly limits her discussion of State and local constitutional authorization to arrest aliens unlawfully present in the U.S. who have previously been convicted of a felony and deported. She doesn't expand the discussion to show States are permitted to arrest illegal immigrants who have not been convicted of a felony and who have not been deported. The same statute she cites also directs the executive to work at the behest of the States, making it subservient to the States in enforcing immigration law in that instance. The depth and breadth of the Congressional field, when considering the Congressional intent gives far wider scope to State power than that to which the Executive branch wishes to be limited.

CONFLICT PREEMPTION--This occurs when compliance with both Federal and State regulations is a physical impossibility or where State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. ACTUAL AS OPPOSED TO HYPOTHETICAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT must exist for conflict preemption to apply. (These are her own legal standards for analysis.) She then bases her decision on hypotheticals, against her own instruction. Notice also, that she says the State law must be an obstacle to . . . the full purposes and objectives of Congress (not the Executive branch.)

She also requires as a legal standard that the U.S. challenge is likely to succeed on its merits. The U.S. (the Executive branch) challenged AZ ON ITS FACE.

The judge's standard for a facial challenge are that it must establish that no set of circumstances exist under which the act would be valid. That a facial challenge must fail where a Statute has a plainly legitimate sweep. That in deciding a facial challenge, courts must be careful NOT TO GO BEYOND THE STATUTES FACIAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECULATE ABOUT HYPOTHETICAL OR IMAGIONARY CASES. Which is what she did.


I would think a Conservative would argue that the solution is better Federal enforcement, rather than additional legislation that will increase the size of government through State mandates which also may burden local law enforcement.

First of all, a conservative would argue that the Constitution be applied in its original intent.

A DOJ 2002 memo says that States have inherent power, subject to Federal preemption, to make arrests for violation of Federal law. And that it is reasonable to assume that Congress intended that the Federal Government should receive whatever assistance states might provide in identifying and detaining those who may have violated Federal law and Federal statutes should be presumed not to have preempted this authority.

Congress has authorized various agencies to assist in this cooperation (LESC, NCIC, ICE, NSEERS, etc.) The LESC operates 24/7 365 days per year. It was created to assist officers in completing exactly the enforcement duties anticipated under the AZ law. In the past 6 years it has processed nearly 10 million information requests from State and local law enforcement. Over 90% of the info requests are processed electronically in under 10 minutes and require no human contact.

There is no additional legislation. AZ ammended its already existing legislation. The burden that you speak of is their job.

Interfering with Federal priorities and could be construed as the same thing. If the Feds want to focus on drugs, and the local Sheriff is rounding up a hundred day workers to hand over to ICE, you might just have a resource issue.

Just might have is speculation. The Feds and locals have always agreed to cooperate when there is a conflict of interest. It even stipulates in AZ ammendment that "reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status . . . EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION."

So the answer again is to focus on more stringent Federal enforcement which Obama appears to be doing.
-spence

More "stringent" Federal enforcement can and should be assisted by State and local enforcement. It is the inherent right of the State and locals to do so, and it makes the entire process more productive.

Yes, the other Courts will chime in. No doubt the 9th Circuit will uphold Bolton's decision. When it gets to the SCOTUS, real and substantive argument may happen. Which way it finally goes . . .??

[Raven]

Interesting that Virginia cops are using the Arizona law in the same fashion