A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[Quantum Windbag]

The government’s argument is that 1070-type laws preempt Federal statutes, which they do.

Which explains why Sotomayor didn't call them on that argument.

Wait, she did.

Can you explain why California's law that is, essentially, identical to Arizona's law is not being challenged? Is it because California is mostly Democratic?

Did it ever cross your mind that you are an idiot, are are you too stupid to see that?

Incorrect, the Federal agencies responsible for enforcing immigration law are doing just that – within the limits of finite resources. It would be irresponsible idiocy to expect those Federal agencies to chase down every border crosser while allowing violent criminals and drug dealers to go free.

And Justice Sotomayor’s comment was an acknowledgement of the conservative justices’ willingness to entertain that irresponsible idiocy.

Exept that federal law specifically authorizes states to assist the federal government in immigration laws. In fact, federal law actually requires states to do so by sending the fingerprints of all people who are arrested to ICE so they can determine immigration status. That means that what Sotomayor was actually doing was pointing out how stupid arguing that federal law prohibits what it specifically authorizes.

 

[Foxfyre]

For 2012, we expect increases in average annual growth of 3.9% for personal income, 1.3% for nonfarm employment, 0.5% for population, and near 5% for retail sales. In absolute numbers, that’s 30,000 new residents, and a similar number for nonfarm employment. The following year will bring 64,000 new residents and 54,000 new jobs. By 2015 the numbers will be near “normal” at 135,000 and 120,000, respectively. The accompanying forecast tables provide additional details.

By mid-decade, we will have regained all the jobs lost and repaired the damage suffered during the recession. At this point, after all we’ve been through, that’s sounds pretty good.
: Arizona's Economy : Economic and Business Research Center : Eller College of Management : The University of Arizona

Arizona's economy started to slowly recover from 2008 prior to the Law going into effect, and it has not been put into full effect as you may well know, until the SCOTUS decides on this issue and lifts sections of the law that are currently under the 9ths ruling ,however, in answer to your question.

The tab for defending the state against lawsuits stemming from Senate Bill 1070, Arizona's controversial immigration law, is now more than $2 milllion dollars and climbing and at this point see no end in sight, while it's true that some of these suits that are directly paid for with donations to defend the law, state costs are not. The Arizona tax payers pick up the tab for that. The Arizona Tourism industry which is the lifesblood of this state in terms of it's economy aside from housing and as you can see our housing industry is not all that well at the moment, has lost, 490 Million dollars in lost revenue and over 3000 jobs as a result of this law according to the Arizona Tourism Employers. Even if this figure is 50% off it's still 50% too high in an economy that is as U of A has shown is slowly on the mend and is far from healthy.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the state's $8.3 billion FY2012 budget into law on April 7, 2011. Using mostly cuts, the budget eliminates a projected $1.1 billion shortfall.[1] The budget is 20% smaller than it was four years ago.[2]

Spending cuts include:[1][16]
• $198 million from universities, approximately a 40% reduction in state support to the schools from the past thee years
•$183.2 million from K-12 schools
•nearly $72.9 million from community colleges
•$50.4 million from the state's social-service agency
Arizona state budget - Sunshine Review

Forgive me Fox, but I don't see how when you have Federal Laws that already address the subject of immigration and knowing that your state already has issues such as I mentioned above, a legislator would be willing to put the state in a position where it has to spend even more money for a law that will have little if any impact on illegal immgration other than to clog the courts with any number of lawsuits costing the citizens of this state. The other issue I find disturbing here is that with 183 Million dollars in cuts to schools, and last in education in the nation, as a legislator you would focus on an issue that is less a priority for State Govt. than it is for the Federal Govt. at the expense of the citizens of this state. No matter, we will have to disagree on this issue, while, I am a huge advocate for providing resources and Federal immigration reform and enforcing the laws we have now on a Federal level, the state of Arizona has other more pressing issues to deal with other than one's that are clearly better solved on a national level. When I see an Arizona Law Officer who has lost his or her job because of budget cuts, and then a willingness to spend the states money on these sorts of issues I tend to think our legislature spends more time worrying about that people think about them personally and less time owrry about the citizens of this great state.

I would have to see the other data. Are there as many illegals in Arizona now as there were before? Are your emergency rooms as clogged with them? Are your public assistance resources as strained beccause of them as before? Are your schools struggling to meet their obligations to educate them? All that has to be measured against the lawsuits which, if Arizona prevails in them, will become less and less until a consistent law is again established and enforced.

The Supreme Court arguments have been fascinating. The Obama Administration actually seems to be arguing that they don't want the states to interfere with the feds non enforcement of the law. They don't want the states doing the job the feds have been unwilling to do. Even Sotomayor realized the absurdity of it and suggested the Administration needs a more persuasive argument.

Monthly Census Bureau data show that the number of less-educated young Hispanic immigrants in the country has declined significantly. The evidence indicates that the illegal population declined after July 2007 and then rebounded somewhat in the summer of 2008 before resuming its decline in the fall of 2008 and into the first quarter of 2009. Both increased immigration enforcement and the recession seem to explain this decline. There is evidence that the decline was caused by both fewer illegal immigrants coming and an increase in the number returning home. However, this pattern does not apply to the legal immigrant population, which has not fallen significantly.

A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population | Center for Immigration Studies

The entire bill has not gone into effect here yet, however parts have been in effect since July of 2010, illegal immigration has been on the decline prior to SB1070 and will likewise stay that way as long as the economy is in it's current form. It takes a little reasearch but when you do you will find that SB1070 has no benefit to Arizona at all other than to cost the state Revenue and to say that it is the main reason for the decline in population of illegal immigration here is wrong as well considering that decline was happening prior to the bills passage. The City of Phoenix has said that this law will erode the relationship between Officers and the hispanic community as well as cost the City needless money to defend it, as well the city currently has a policy in place that was similar to SB1070. The supporters of this bill see this as the State of Arizona doing something that the Federal Govt. is not doing, but the problem with that is, Arizona is not the only state in the United States, so unless SB1070 is the law if the land illegal immigrants who were to leave as a result of the law can simply go to a state near us that does not have such a law in place such as California or N.M. and leave Arizona with the cost of defending lawsuits and the stigma associated with the bill itself. This is why matters like this are best addressed on a national level and the investment is needed on a national level to solve it. As for our schools, it would not matter if there were illegals in the schools as that issue has been resolved by the SCOTUS and if they are here they are to be educated.

Some school districts that serve large immigrant neighborhoods already have seen sharp drops in enrollment. That could save the state money but hurt individual schools because every student equates to $4,404 in per-pupil state funding. Analysts say the flight of illegal immigrants also could lead to a loss of sales tax and other revenue. And their departure is hurting the apartment complexes and stores where they live and shop.
Latinos represent a huge and fast-growing market. About one in three people in Arizona is Latino, and about 40 percent are 17 or younger. In Arizona, Latinos accounted for 16 percent of all purchases in the state, or $31 billion in spending, according to a report by the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.


Arizona's illegal immigrants departure affecting businesses

Forgive me if I find laws like SB1070 written by and at the request of lobby groups to be a huge exercise in nonsense and more so these lobby groups do not have to pay the real costs associated with such legislation, we DO, the Arizona taxpayers. Again I would just say this in closing, even if this law had any effect here locally and it's my belief that any effect it does have is offset by the cost to Arizona, the very fact there are a whole host of other states that do not have these Laws, Arizona will just be a highway in which illegal immigrants pass through to get there, because this Law at least the last time I checked does not call for local police to set up it's own ports of entry and border patrol.

So it is safe to say that you're going to keep with your original argument and you have no answers for my questions.

It is not Arizona's responsibility for the consequences to states with more lenient illegal immigration policies. Perhaps if we get most of the illegals that would have otherwise settled in Arizona, that could very well make it not so much political suicide to deal with that more strongly here too. Already our crime rate, the traffic carnage, and the jail and prison population would be noticably less if we did not have the illegals here. And I say that being fully aware that MOST of the illegals here are not committing crimes other than being here illegally.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Supreme Court arguments have been fascinating. The Obama Administration actually seems to be arguing that they don't want the states to interfere with the feds non enforcement of the law.

The government’s argument is that 1070-type laws preempt Federal statutes, which they do.

They don't want the states doing the job the feds have been unwilling to do. Even Sotomayor realized the absurdity of it and suggested the Administration needs a more persuasive argument.

Incorrect, the Federal agencies responsible for enforcing immigration law are doing just that – within the limits of finite resources. It would be irresponsible idiocy to expect those Federal agencies to chase down every border crosser while allowing violent criminals and drug dealers to go free.

And Justice Sotomayor’s comment was an acknowledgement of the conservative justices’ willingness to entertain that irresponsible idiocy.

You obviously are not following the arguments. The U.S. attorney was beginning to look so ridiculous in his argument that Arizona should not be enforcing the law that the U.S. government was not willing to enforce or that Arizona should not be doing a job that the U.S. government was not doing so that at one point Sotomayor told him to "move on, this isn't selling."

Essentially none of the justices seemed to have any grasp on why the Administration would oppose help from Arizona in enforcing federal laws and why Arizona should not be allowed to check on somebody's citienship status. There are simply no federal laws of any kind prohibiting that.

 

[Navy1960]

I would have to see the other data. Are there as many illegals in Arizona now as there were before? Are your emergency rooms as clogged with them? Are your public assistance resources as strained beccause of them as before? Are your schools struggling to meet their obligations to educate them? All that has to be measured against the lawsuits which, if Arizona prevails in them, will become less and less until a consistent law is again established and enforced.

The Supreme Court arguments have been fascinating. The Obama Administration actually seems to be arguing that they don't want the states to interfere with the feds non enforcement of the law. They don't want the states doing the job the feds have been unwilling to do. Even Sotomayor realized the absurdity of it and suggested the Administration needs a more persuasive argument.

Monthly Census Bureau data show that the number of less-educated young Hispanic immigrants in the country has declined significantly. The evidence indicates that the illegal population declined after July 2007 and then rebounded somewhat in the summer of 2008 before resuming its decline in the fall of 2008 and into the first quarter of 2009. Both increased immigration enforcement and the recession seem to explain this decline. There is evidence that the decline was caused by both fewer illegal immigrants coming and an increase in the number returning home. However, this pattern does not apply to the legal immigrant population, which has not fallen significantly.

A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population | Center for Immigration Studies

The entire bill has not gone into effect here yet, however parts have been in effect since July of 2010, illegal immigration has been on the decline prior to SB1070 and will likewise stay that way as long as the economy is in it's current form. It takes a little reasearch but when you do you will find that SB1070 has no benefit to Arizona at all other than to cost the state Revenue and to say that it is the main reason for the decline in population of illegal immigration here is wrong as well considering that decline was happening prior to the bills passage. The City of Phoenix has said that this law will erode the relationship between Officers and the hispanic community as well as cost the City needless money to defend it, as well the city currently has a policy in place that was similar to SB1070. The supporters of this bill see this as the State of Arizona doing something that the Federal Govt. is not doing, but the problem with that is, Arizona is not the only state in the United States, so unless SB1070 is the law if the land illegal immigrants who were to leave as a result of the law can simply go to a state near us that does not have such a law in place such as California or N.M. and leave Arizona with the cost of defending lawsuits and the stigma associated with the bill itself. This is why matters like this are best addressed on a national level and the investment is needed on a national level to solve it. As for our schools, it would not matter if there were illegals in the schools as that issue has been resolved by the SCOTUS and if they are here they are to be educated.

Some school districts that serve large immigrant neighborhoods already have seen sharp drops in enrollment. That could save the state money but hurt individual schools because every student equates to $4,404 in per-pupil state funding. Analysts say the flight of illegal immigrants also could lead to a loss of sales tax and other revenue. And their departure is hurting the apartment complexes and stores where they live and shop.
Latinos represent a huge and fast-growing market. About one in three people in Arizona is Latino, and about 40 percent are 17 or younger. In Arizona, Latinos accounted for 16 percent of all purchases in the state, or $31 billion in spending, according to a report by the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.


Arizona's illegal immigrants departure affecting businesses

Forgive me if I find laws like SB1070 written by and at the request of lobby groups to be a huge exercise in nonsense and more so these lobby groups do not have to pay the real costs associated with such legislation, we DO, the Arizona taxpayers. Again I would just say this in closing, even if this law had any effect here locally and it's my belief that any effect it does have is offset by the cost to Arizona, the very fact there are a whole host of other states that do not have these Laws, Arizona will just be a highway in which illegal immigrants pass through to get there, because this Law at least the last time I checked does not call for local police to set up it's own ports of entry and border patrol.

So it is safe to say that you're going to keep with your original argument and you have no answers for my questions.

It is not Arizona's responsibility for the consequences to states with more lenient illegal immigration policies. Perhaps if we get most of the illegals that would have otherwise settled in Arizona, that could very well make it not so much political suicide to deal with that more strongly here too. Already our crime rate, the traffic carnage, and the jail and prison population would be noticably less if we did not have the illegals here. And I say that being fully aware that MOST of the illegals here are not committing crimes other than being here illegally.

Fox , I've given you more than enough to answer your questions, however here is another study done by the University of Arizona, you will forgive me if I don't cite any studies done by FAIR as they are the principle writers of this and have a vested interest in it and are therefor more than likely to skew data so to meet the needs of that.

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an
estimated $2.4 billion (about $860 million for naturalized citizens plus about $1.5 billion for
non-citizens). Balanced against incremental fiscal costs of $1.4 billion for education, health
care, and law enforcement, immigrants in Arizona generated a net 2004 fiscal contribution
of about $940 million toward services such as public safety, libraries, road maintenance,
and other areas. Because the incremental costs incurred by immigrants in these areas are
difficult to measure directly, they are not included in this report.
The 2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion
($15 billion for naturalized citizens and $29 billion for non-citizens). This output included
$20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-timeequivalent
jobs.


Health care: Total uncompensated care costs (reported as bad debt) for hospitals
in Arizona was about $420 million, of which an estimated $150 million (32 percent)
was incurred by immigrants. Of the $150 million in uncompensated care costs
associated with immigrants, nearly $140 million was incurred by non-citizens.

Law enforcement: In the area of law enforcement, the cost to the Arizona
Department of Corrections of incarcerating immigrants in 2004 was $91 million, of
which $89 million was for non-citizens.

Consumer spending in 2004 by non-citizen households in Arizona was an estimated
$4.4 billion. Approximately 28,000 full-time-equivalent jobs can be attributed to
this spending along with $4.3 billion of output in the state’s economy. This output
included labor income of about $930 million, and other income (defined as rents,
royalties, dividends, and corporate profits) of $560 million.

Consumer spending in 2004 by Arizona’s non-citizens generated tax revenues of
approximately $320 million, consisting of personal taxes of nearly $36 million, sales
taxes of $150 million, and business taxes of about $130 million.

The cost of educating immigrant ELL students in 2004 was about $544.1 million. The majority
(65 percent) of these costs were incurred in Maricopa County. Pima County had the next
highest ELL costs at 14 percent of the total. These costs are detailed in Table 5 and Figure 7.

I find it interesting on that one that FAIR claims that figure to be 2.3 Billion which is more than the entire budget shortfall for the whole state.

In construction, a 15-percent workforce reduction would result in losses of 55,700
full-time-equivalent jobs, $6.6 billion in output, labor income of $2.6 billion, and $451
million in other income. The lost tax revenue to the state would be approximately $269
million.

In the service sectors analyzed, a 16-percent reduction in the labor force would
translate to losses of 54,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, $2.5 billion in output, labor income
of $901 million, and other income of $273 million. The lost tax revenue to the state
would be approximately $157 million.

As consumers, immigrants command significant spending power. The 2004 spending
power of naturalized citizens was approximately $6.1 billion and that of non-citizens was
approximately $4.4 billion. The economic activity that can be attributed to this spending
power includes 66,400 full-time-equivalent jobs and $10 billion in output. The state tax
revenues attributable to this spending power were approximately $780 million.
Our simulations of the consequences of eliminating a significant share of Arizona’s lowskilled
workers quantified the implications for the industry sectors that employ them. In
agriculture, a 15-percent workforce reduction resulted in lost output of $600 million and
lost tax revenues of approximately $25 million. In construction, a 15-percent workforce
reduction resulted in a lost output of $6.6 billion and lost tax revenues of approximately
$270 million. A ten-percent workforce reduction in manufacturing resulted in reduced
output of $3.8 billion and lost tax revenues of approximately $100 million. A 16-percent
workforce reduction in the service sectors analyzed resulted in lost output of $2.5 billion
and reduced tax revenues of about $160 million.
http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/immigration/publications/impactofimmigrants08.pdf

That should answer all your questions in that it addresses your questions as to the costs to Education, Medical, Law Enforcement, etc. You can see that even though based on figures prior to SB1070 the costs are all offset by lost revenue and costs to the state and not to mention all the things I have mentioned before, the sheer waste of time this bill is in passing along a problem to other states that is and can be solved at the Federal Level with the right kind of investment and attitudes that better reflect reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

Monthly Census Bureau data show that the number of less-educated young Hispanic immigrants in the country has declined significantly. The evidence indicates that the illegal population declined after July 2007 and then rebounded somewhat in the summer of 2008 before resuming its decline in the fall of 2008 and into the first quarter of 2009. Both increased immigration enforcement and the recession seem to explain this decline. There is evidence that the decline was caused by both fewer illegal immigrants coming and an increase in the number returning home. However, this pattern does not apply to the legal immigrant population, which has not fallen significantly.

A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population | Center for Immigration Studies

The entire bill has not gone into effect here yet, however parts have been in effect since July of 2010, illegal immigration has been on the decline prior to SB1070 and will likewise stay that way as long as the economy is in it's current form. It takes a little reasearch but when you do you will find that SB1070 has no benefit to Arizona at all other than to cost the state Revenue and to say that it is the main reason for the decline in population of illegal immigration here is wrong as well considering that decline was happening prior to the bills passage. The City of Phoenix has said that this law will erode the relationship between Officers and the hispanic community as well as cost the City needless money to defend it, as well the city currently has a policy in place that was similar to SB1070. The supporters of this bill see this as the State of Arizona doing something that the Federal Govt. is not doing, but the problem with that is, Arizona is not the only state in the United States, so unless SB1070 is the law if the land illegal immigrants who were to leave as a result of the law can simply go to a state near us that does not have such a law in place such as California or N.M. and leave Arizona with the cost of defending lawsuits and the stigma associated with the bill itself. This is why matters like this are best addressed on a national level and the investment is needed on a national level to solve it. As for our schools, it would not matter if there were illegals in the schools as that issue has been resolved by the SCOTUS and if they are here they are to be educated.

Some school districts that serve large immigrant neighborhoods already have seen sharp drops in enrollment. That could save the state money but hurt individual schools because every student equates to $4,404 in per-pupil state funding. Analysts say the flight of illegal immigrants also could lead to a loss of sales tax and other revenue. And their departure is hurting the apartment complexes and stores where they live and shop.
Latinos represent a huge and fast-growing market. About one in three people in Arizona is Latino, and about 40 percent are 17 or younger. In Arizona, Latinos accounted for 16 percent of all purchases in the state, or $31 billion in spending, according to a report by the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.


Arizona's illegal immigrants departure affecting businesses

Forgive me if I find laws like SB1070 written by and at the request of lobby groups to be a huge exercise in nonsense and more so these lobby groups do not have to pay the real costs associated with such legislation, we DO, the Arizona taxpayers. Again I would just say this in closing, even if this law had any effect here locally and it's my belief that any effect it does have is offset by the cost to Arizona, the very fact there are a whole host of other states that do not have these Laws, Arizona will just be a highway in which illegal immigrants pass through to get there, because this Law at least the last time I checked does not call for local police to set up it's own ports of entry and border patrol.

So it is safe to say that you're going to keep with your original argument and you have no answers for my questions.

It is not Arizona's responsibility for the consequences to states with more lenient illegal immigration policies. Perhaps if we get most of the illegals that would have otherwise settled in Arizona, that could very well make it not so much political suicide to deal with that more strongly here too. Already our crime rate, the traffic carnage, and the jail and prison population would be noticably less if we did not have the illegals here. And I say that being fully aware that MOST of the illegals here are not committing crimes other than being here illegally.

Fox , I've given you more than enough to answer your questions, however here is another study done by the University of Arizona, you will forgive me if I don't cite any studies done by FAIR as they are the principle writers of this and have a vested interest in it and are therefor more than likely to skew data so to meet the needs of that.

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an
estimated $2.4 billion (about $860 million for naturalized citizens plus about $1.5 billion for
non-citizens). Balanced against incremental fiscal costs of $1.4 billion for education, health
care, and law enforcement, immigrants in Arizona generated a net 2004 fiscal contribution
of about $940 million toward services such as public safety, libraries, road maintenance,
and other areas. Because the incremental costs incurred by immigrants in these areas are
difficult to measure directly, they are not included in this report.
The 2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion
($15 billion for naturalized citizens and $29 billion for non-citizens). This output included
$20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-timeequivalent
jobs.


Health care: Total uncompensated care costs (reported as bad debt) for hospitals
in Arizona was about $420 million, of which an estimated $150 million (32 percent)
was incurred by immigrants. Of the $150 million in uncompensated care costs
associated with immigrants, nearly $140 million was incurred by non-citizens.

Law enforcement: In the area of law enforcement, the cost to the Arizona
Department of Corrections of incarcerating immigrants in 2004 was $91 million, of
which $89 million was for non-citizens.

Consumer spending in 2004 by non-citizen households in Arizona was an estimated
$4.4 billion. Approximately 28,000 full-time-equivalent jobs can be attributed to
this spending along with $4.3 billion of output in the state’s economy. This output
included labor income of about $930 million, and other income (defined as rents,
royalties, dividends, and corporate profits) of $560 million.

Consumer spending in 2004 by Arizona’s non-citizens generated tax revenues of
approximately $320 million, consisting of personal taxes of nearly $36 million, sales
taxes of $150 million, and business taxes of about $130 million.

The cost of educating immigrant ELL students in 2004 was about $544.1 million. The majority
(65 percent) of these costs were incurred in Maricopa County. Pima County had the next
highest ELL costs at 14 percent of the total. These costs are detailed in Table 5 and Figure 7.

I find it interesting on that one that FAIR claims that figure to be 2.3 Billion which is more than the entire budget shortfall for the whole state.

In construction, a 15-percent workforce reduction would result in losses of 55,700
full-time-equivalent jobs, $6.6 billion in output, labor income of $2.6 billion, and $451
million in other income. The lost tax revenue to the state would be approximately $269
million.

In the service sectors analyzed, a 16-percent reduction in the labor force would
translate to losses of 54,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, $2.5 billion in output, labor income
of $901 million, and other income of $273 million. The lost tax revenue to the state
would be approximately $157 million.

As consumers, immigrants command significant spending power. The 2004 spending
power of naturalized citizens was approximately $6.1 billion and that of non-citizens was
approximately $4.4 billion. The economic activity that can be attributed to this spending
power includes 66,400 full-time-equivalent jobs and $10 billion in output. The state tax
revenues attributable to this spending power were approximately $780 million.
Our simulations of the consequences of eliminating a significant share of Arizona’s lowskilled
workers quantified the implications for the industry sectors that employ them. In
agriculture, a 15-percent workforce reduction resulted in lost output of $600 million and
lost tax revenues of approximately $25 million. In construction, a 15-percent workforce
reduction resulted in a lost output of $6.6 billion and lost tax revenues of approximately
$270 million. A ten-percent workforce reduction in manufacturing resulted in reduced
output of $3.8 billion and lost tax revenues of approximately $100 million. A 16-percent
workforce reduction in the service sectors analyzed resulted in lost output of $2.5 billion
and reduced tax revenues of about $160 million.
http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/immigration/publications/impactofimmigrants08.pdf

That should answer all your questions in that it addresses your questions as to the costs to Education, Medical, Law Enforcement, etc. You can see that even though based on figures prior to SB1070 the costs are all offset by lost revenue and costs to the state and not to mention all the things I have mentioned before, the sheer waste of time this bill is in passing along a problem to other states that is and can be solved at the Federal Level with the right kind of investment and attitudes that better reflect reality.

I've read a lot of the studies from both sides. Those who don't want illegal immigration dealt with are every bit as likely to skew the data in that direction as is FAIR or any other group that wants illegal immigration stopped will skew the data in that direction.

But I want to see the statistics since the law was passed. I want to see the hard data that any loss of business by the absense of the illegals or any lawsuits incurred are not offset by the savings in costs not incurred because of the presence of the illegals.

I doubt any of your groups have conducted such a study. I don't care what happened prior to the law being passed. It had broad support from the Arizona people at the time and that is what this country was supposed to be. A country in which the people's will would prevail short of tramping on anybody's unalienable rights. There is no unalienable right to be in the USA without proper documentation.

'And the law remains popular throughout the nation and also in Arizona despite the fact that the rotten economy has slowed down the illegal influx. As the economy picks up, at least now there is a better system in place to deal with it as illegal traffic will most likely pick up too. That is if SCOTUS uphold the Arizona law and it looks like it is going to go that way.
Arizona immigration law persistently popular - Behind the Numbers - The Washington Post

 

[Navy1960]

So it is safe to say that you're going to keep with your original argument and you have no answers for my questions.

It is not Arizona's responsibility for the consequences to states with more lenient illegal immigration policies. Perhaps if we get most of the illegals that would have otherwise settled in Arizona, that could very well make it not so much political suicide to deal with that more strongly here too. Already our crime rate, the traffic carnage, and the jail and prison population would be noticably less if we did not have the illegals here. And I say that being fully aware that MOST of the illegals here are not committing crimes other than being here illegally.

Fox , I've given you more than enough to answer your questions, however here is another study done by the University of Arizona, you will forgive me if I don't cite any studies done by FAIR as they are the principle writers of this and have a vested interest in it and are therefor more than likely to skew data so to meet the needs of that.

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an
estimated $2.4 billion (about $860 million for naturalized citizens plus about $1.5 billion for
non-citizens). Balanced against incremental fiscal costs of $1.4 billion for education, health
care, and law enforcement, immigrants in Arizona generated a net 2004 fiscal contribution
of about $940 million toward services such as public safety, libraries, road maintenance,
and other areas. Because the incremental costs incurred by immigrants in these areas are
difficult to measure directly, they are not included in this report.
The 2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion
($15 billion for naturalized citizens and $29 billion for non-citizens). This output included
$20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-timeequivalent
jobs.


Health care: Total uncompensated care costs (reported as bad debt) for hospitals
in Arizona was about $420 million, of which an estimated $150 million (32 percent)
was incurred by immigrants. Of the $150 million in uncompensated care costs
associated with immigrants, nearly $140 million was incurred by non-citizens.

Law enforcement: In the area of law enforcement, the cost to the Arizona
Department of Corrections of incarcerating immigrants in 2004 was $91 million, of
which $89 million was for non-citizens.

Consumer spending in 2004 by non-citizen households in Arizona was an estimated
$4.4 billion. Approximately 28,000 full-time-equivalent jobs can be attributed to
this spending along with $4.3 billion of output in the state’s economy. This output
included labor income of about $930 million, and other income (defined as rents,
royalties, dividends, and corporate profits) of $560 million.

Consumer spending in 2004 by Arizona’s non-citizens generated tax revenues of
approximately $320 million, consisting of personal taxes of nearly $36 million, sales
taxes of $150 million, and business taxes of about $130 million.

The cost of educating immigrant ELL students in 2004 was about $544.1 million. The majority
(65 percent) of these costs were incurred in Maricopa County. Pima County had the next
highest ELL costs at 14 percent of the total. These costs are detailed in Table 5 and Figure 7.

I find it interesting on that one that FAIR claims that figure to be 2.3 Billion which is more than the entire budget shortfall for the whole state.

In construction, a 15-percent workforce reduction would result in losses of 55,700
full-time-equivalent jobs, $6.6 billion in output, labor income of $2.6 billion, and $451
million in other income. The lost tax revenue to the state would be approximately $269
million.

In the service sectors analyzed, a 16-percent reduction in the labor force would
translate to losses of 54,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, $2.5 billion in output, labor income
of $901 million, and other income of $273 million. The lost tax revenue to the state
would be approximately $157 million.

As consumers, immigrants command significant spending power. The 2004 spending
power of naturalized citizens was approximately $6.1 billion and that of non-citizens was
approximately $4.4 billion. The economic activity that can be attributed to this spending
power includes 66,400 full-time-equivalent jobs and $10 billion in output. The state tax
revenues attributable to this spending power were approximately $780 million.
Our simulations of the consequences of eliminating a significant share of Arizona’s lowskilled
workers quantified the implications for the industry sectors that employ them. In
agriculture, a 15-percent workforce reduction resulted in lost output of $600 million and
lost tax revenues of approximately $25 million. In construction, a 15-percent workforce
reduction resulted in a lost output of $6.6 billion and lost tax revenues of approximately
$270 million. A ten-percent workforce reduction in manufacturing resulted in reduced
output of $3.8 billion and lost tax revenues of approximately $100 million. A 16-percent
workforce reduction in the service sectors analyzed resulted in lost output of $2.5 billion
and reduced tax revenues of about $160 million.
http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/immigration/publications/impactofimmigrants08.pdf

That should answer all your questions in that it addresses your questions as to the costs to Education, Medical, Law Enforcement, etc. You can see that even though based on figures prior to SB1070 the costs are all offset by lost revenue and costs to the state and not to mention all the things I have mentioned before, the sheer waste of time this bill is in passing along a problem to other states that is and can be solved at the Federal Level with the right kind of investment and attitudes that better reflect reality.

I've read a lot of the studies from both sides. Those who don't want illegal immigration dealt with are every bit as likely to skew the data in that direction as is FAIR or any other group that wants illegal immigration stopped will skew the data in that direction.

But I want to see the statistics since the law was passed. I want to see the hard data that any loss of business by the absense of the illegals or any lawsuits incurred are not offset by the savings in costs not incurred because of the presence of the illegals.

I doubt any of your groups have conducted such a study. I don't care what happened prior to the law being passed. It had broad support from the Arizona people at the time and that is what this country was supposed to be. A country in which the people's will would prevail short of tramping on anybody's unalienable rights. There is no unalienable right to be in the USA without proper documentation.

'And the law remains popular throughout the nation and also in Arizona despite the fact that the rotten economy has slowed down the illegal influx. As the economy picks up, at least now there is a better system in place to deal with it as illegal traffic will most likely pick up too. That is if SCOTUS uphold the Arizona law and it looks like it is going to go that way.
Arizona immigration law persistently popular - Behind the Numbers - The Washington Post

Frist, while I have never indicated any disagreement with the notion that to be here illegally is something that is to be admired or even for that matter a right, what I have said, is SB1070 will cost more than it does good and have provided you with more than ample evidence to back that up. Even if you take away every statistic I have provided you the one that stands out the most is the tax revenue generated by the over 340,000 people in this state that are lacking documentation. Should those people simply leave or just go home, this state loses over a Billion dollars in revenue. It would be more prudent to address the issue of guest workers, and funding for border security for the Federal Govt. rather than cost the taxpayers of this state more money in terms of housing these folks in our jails while they wait for ICE or, the sheer number of lawsuits that will be generated by it. While the Law may have broad support I might remind you that laws are not good only because they are popular, I can think of several popular laws in this nations history at times that were struck down, among them, "the Volstead Act", laws that denied women and people of color to vote, etc. So while popular yes, it does not mean the law is good or sometimes constitutional for that matter. I am big supporter of funding for more border security and a good guest worker program and also reforming the immigration system as a whole so that people do not have to wait forever to get here. However, what I am not a supporter of is a state that takes it upon themselves to fix an issue that is clearly not within their constitutional power to do.

The Congress shall have Power….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

While I tend to agree based on the sheer bumbling of the Administrations lawyers in front of the court that the law will be upheld at least in whole or in part, in the end it will not have any effect here other than to cost the state money and eventually as ICE becomes stretched more thin as a result of budget cuts Arizona Law enforcement will be foreced to keep illegal immigrants in our jails at our cost, or let them go. I do believe however when the economy improves this law will not deter illegal immigrants from coming here as this economy has and will for sometime depend on immigrant labor until such time as it is fixed where it needs to be fixed and thats at a Federal level.

 

[Liability]

Fox , I've given you more than enough to answer your questions, however here is another study done by the University of Arizona, you will forgive me if I don't cite any studies done by FAIR as they are the principle writers of this and have a vested interest in it and are therefor more than likely to skew data so to meet the needs of that.

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an
estimated $2.4 billion (about $860 million for naturalized citizens plus about $1.5 billion for
non-citizens). Balanced against incremental fiscal costs of $1.4 billion for education, health
care, and law enforcement, immigrants in Arizona generated a net 2004 fiscal contribution
of about $940 million toward services such as public safety, libraries, road maintenance,
and other areas. Because the incremental costs incurred by immigrants in these areas are
difficult to measure directly, they are not included in this report.
The 2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion
($15 billion for naturalized citizens and $29 billion for non-citizens). This output included
$20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-timeequivalent
jobs.


Health care: Total uncompensated care costs (reported as bad debt) for hospitals
in Arizona was about $420 million, of which an estimated $150 million (32 percent)
was incurred by immigrants. Of the $150 million in uncompensated care costs
associated with immigrants, nearly $140 million was incurred by non-citizens.

Law enforcement: In the area of law enforcement, the cost to the Arizona
Department of Corrections of incarcerating immigrants in 2004 was $91 million, of
which $89 million was for non-citizens.

Consumer spending in 2004 by non-citizen households in Arizona was an estimated
$4.4 billion. Approximately 28,000 full-time-equivalent jobs can be attributed to
this spending along with $4.3 billion of output in the state’s economy. This output
included labor income of about $930 million, and other income (defined as rents,
royalties, dividends, and corporate profits) of $560 million.

Consumer spending in 2004 by Arizona’s non-citizens generated tax revenues of
approximately $320 million, consisting of personal taxes of nearly $36 million, sales
taxes of $150 million, and business taxes of about $130 million.

The cost of educating immigrant ELL students in 2004 was about $544.1 million. The majority
(65 percent) of these costs were incurred in Maricopa County. Pima County had the next
highest ELL costs at 14 percent of the total. These costs are detailed in Table 5 and Figure 7.

I find it interesting on that one that FAIR claims that figure to be 2.3 Billion which is more than the entire budget shortfall for the whole state.

In construction, a 15-percent workforce reduction would result in losses of 55,700
full-time-equivalent jobs, $6.6 billion in output, labor income of $2.6 billion, and $451
million in other income. The lost tax revenue to the state would be approximately $269
million.

In the service sectors analyzed, a 16-percent reduction in the labor force would
translate to losses of 54,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, $2.5 billion in output, labor income
of $901 million, and other income of $273 million. The lost tax revenue to the state
would be approximately $157 million.

As consumers, immigrants command significant spending power. The 2004 spending
power of naturalized citizens was approximately $6.1 billion and that of non-citizens was
approximately $4.4 billion. The economic activity that can be attributed to this spending
power includes 66,400 full-time-equivalent jobs and $10 billion in output. The state tax
revenues attributable to this spending power were approximately $780 million.
Our simulations of the consequences of eliminating a significant share of Arizona’s lowskilled
workers quantified the implications for the industry sectors that employ them. In
agriculture, a 15-percent workforce reduction resulted in lost output of $600 million and
lost tax revenues of approximately $25 million. In construction, a 15-percent workforce
reduction resulted in a lost output of $6.6 billion and lost tax revenues of approximately
$270 million. A ten-percent workforce reduction in manufacturing resulted in reduced
output of $3.8 billion and lost tax revenues of approximately $100 million. A 16-percent
workforce reduction in the service sectors analyzed resulted in lost output of $2.5 billion
and reduced tax revenues of about $160 million.
http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/immigration/publications/impactofimmigrants08.pdf

That should answer all your questions in that it addresses your questions as to the costs to Education, Medical, Law Enforcement, etc. You can see that even though based on figures prior to SB1070 the costs are all offset by lost revenue and costs to the state and not to mention all the things I have mentioned before, the sheer waste of time this bill is in passing along a problem to other states that is and can be solved at the Federal Level with the right kind of investment and attitudes that better reflect reality.

I've read a lot of the studies from both sides. Those who don't want illegal immigration dealt with are every bit as likely to skew the data in that direction as is FAIR or any other group that wants illegal immigration stopped will skew the data in that direction.

But I want to see the statistics since the law was passed. I want to see the hard data that any loss of business by the absense of the illegals or any lawsuits incurred are not offset by the savings in costs not incurred because of the presence of the illegals.

I doubt any of your groups have conducted such a study. I don't care what happened prior to the law being passed. It had broad support from the Arizona people at the time and that is what this country was supposed to be. A country in which the people's will would prevail short of tramping on anybody's unalienable rights. There is no unalienable right to be in the USA without proper documentation.

'And the law remains popular throughout the nation and also in Arizona despite the fact that the rotten economy has slowed down the illegal influx. As the economy picks up, at least now there is a better system in place to deal with it as illegal traffic will most likely pick up too. That is if SCOTUS uphold the Arizona law and it looks like it is going to go that way.
Arizona immigration law persistently popular - Behind the Numbers - The Washington Post

Frist, while I have never indicated any disagreement with the notion that to be here illegally is something that is to be admired or even for that matter a right, what I have said, is SB1070 will cost more than it does good and have provided you with more than ample evidence to back that up. Even if you take away every statistic I have provided you the one that stands out the most is the tax revenue generated by the over 340,000 people in this state that are lacking documentation. Should those people simply leave or just go home, this state loses over a Billion dollars in revenue. It would be more prudent to address the issue of guest workers, and funding for border security for the Federal Govt. rather than cost the taxpayers of this state more money in terms of housing these folks in our jails while they wait for ICE or, the sheer number of lawsuits that will be generated by it. While the Law may have broad support I might remind you that laws are not good only because they are popular, I can think of several popular laws in this nations history at times that were struck down, among them, "the Volstead Act", laws that denied women and people of color to vote, etc. So while popular yes, it does not mean the law is good or sometimes constitutional for that matter. I am big supporter of funding for more border security and a good guest worker program and also reforming the immigration system as a whole so that people do not have to wait forever to get here. However, what I am not a supporter of is a state that takes it upon themselves to fix an issue that is clearly not within their constitutional power to do.

The Congress shall have Power….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

While I tend to agree based on the sheer bumbling of the Administrations lawyers in front of the court that the law will be upheld at least in whole or in part, in the end it will not have any effect here other than to cost the state money and eventually as ICE becomes stretched more thin as a result of budget cuts Arizona Law enforcement will be foreced to keep illegal immigrants in our jails at our cost, or let them go. I do believe however when the economy improves this law will not deter illegal immigrants from coming here as this economy has and will for sometime depend on immigrant labor until such time as it is fixed where it needs to be fixed and thats at a Federal level.

The Supremacy Clause would be of some significance to the discussion IF the Arizona Law in ANY way contradicted Federal Law.

But it doesn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've read a lot of the studies from both sides. Those who don't want illegal immigration dealt with are every bit as likely to skew the data in that direction as is FAIR or any other group that wants illegal immigration stopped will skew the data in that direction.

But I want to see the statistics since the law was passed. I want to see the hard data that any loss of business by the absense of the illegals or any lawsuits incurred are not offset by the savings in costs not incurred because of the presence of the illegals.

I doubt any of your groups have conducted such a study. I don't care what happened prior to the law being passed. It had broad support from the Arizona people at the time and that is what this country was supposed to be. A country in which the people's will would prevail short of tramping on anybody's unalienable rights. There is no unalienable right to be in the USA without proper documentation.

'And the law remains popular throughout the nation and also in Arizona despite the fact that the rotten economy has slowed down the illegal influx. As the economy picks up, at least now there is a better system in place to deal with it as illegal traffic will most likely pick up too. That is if SCOTUS uphold the Arizona law and it looks like it is going to go that way.
Arizona immigration law persistently popular - Behind the Numbers - The Washington Post

Frist, while I have never indicated any disagreement with the notion that to be here illegally is something that is to be admired or even for that matter a right, what I have said, is SB1070 will cost more than it does good and have provided you with more than ample evidence to back that up. Even if you take away every statistic I have provided you the one that stands out the most is the tax revenue generated by the over 340,000 people in this state that are lacking documentation. Should those people simply leave or just go home, this state loses over a Billion dollars in revenue. It would be more prudent to address the issue of guest workers, and funding for border security for the Federal Govt. rather than cost the taxpayers of this state more money in terms of housing these folks in our jails while they wait for ICE or, the sheer number of lawsuits that will be generated by it. While the Law may have broad support I might remind you that laws are not good only because they are popular, I can think of several popular laws in this nations history at times that were struck down, among them, "the Volstead Act", laws that denied women and people of color to vote, etc. So while popular yes, it does not mean the law is good or sometimes constitutional for that matter. I am big supporter of funding for more border security and a good guest worker program and also reforming the immigration system as a whole so that people do not have to wait forever to get here. However, what I am not a supporter of is a state that takes it upon themselves to fix an issue that is clearly not within their constitutional power to do.

The Congress shall have Power….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

While I tend to agree based on the sheer bumbling of the Administrations lawyers in front of the court that the law will be upheld at least in whole or in part, in the end it will not have any effect here other than to cost the state money and eventually as ICE becomes stretched more thin as a result of budget cuts Arizona Law enforcement will be foreced to keep illegal immigrants in our jails at our cost, or let them go. I do believe however when the economy improves this law will not deter illegal immigrants from coming here as this economy has and will for sometime depend on immigrant labor until such time as it is fixed where it needs to be fixed and thats at a Federal level.

The Supremacy Clause would be of some significance to the discussion IF the Arizona Law in ANY way contradicted Federal Law.

But it doesn't.

I'm certainly no legal eagle and don't pretend to know all the fine ponts of the law. But that has been my impression too. Not only does the Arizona law not do anything that the federal law doesn't also do, but it is somewhat less strong than the federal law.

It is absurd to think that a state can't pass its own laws regulating things that are pertinent to that state even when federal laws exists so long as the state laws do not negate or weaken the federal laws. Things like drugs and alcohol, speed limits, minimum wage, etc. all have or have had federal laws and also a separate layer of state laws in many states.

Whether Navy is correct that Arizona's law will stretch ICE more thinly amy lor may not be true, but it sure won't if Arizona law enforcement can enforce the law. SCOTUS I think will settle that issue. Whether Navy is right that the Arizona law will cost Arizona a lot of money also remains to be seen. If it turns out that the cost is more than the results merit, then I'm sure Arozona will rescind the law. Until such time, it has a lot of national approval and support and many more states will likely follow suit if it works out well.

It is absurd for the feds to argue that Arizona should not do the job that the federal government is supposed to do but has chosen not to do.

 

[Navy1960]

Frist, while I have never indicated any disagreement with the notion that to be here illegally is something that is to be admired or even for that matter a right, what I have said, is SB1070 will cost more than it does good and have provided you with more than ample evidence to back that up. Even if you take away every statistic I have provided you the one that stands out the most is the tax revenue generated by the over 340,000 people in this state that are lacking documentation. Should those people simply leave or just go home, this state loses over a Billion dollars in revenue. It would be more prudent to address the issue of guest workers, and funding for border security for the Federal Govt. rather than cost the taxpayers of this state more money in terms of housing these folks in our jails while they wait for ICE or, the sheer number of lawsuits that will be generated by it. While the Law may have broad support I might remind you that laws are not good only because they are popular, I can think of several popular laws in this nations history at times that were struck down, among them, "the Volstead Act", laws that denied women and people of color to vote, etc. So while popular yes, it does not mean the law is good or sometimes constitutional for that matter. I am big supporter of funding for more border security and a good guest worker program and also reforming the immigration system as a whole so that people do not have to wait forever to get here. However, what I am not a supporter of is a state that takes it upon themselves to fix an issue that is clearly not within their constitutional power to do.

The Congress shall have Power….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

While I tend to agree based on the sheer bumbling of the Administrations lawyers in front of the court that the law will be upheld at least in whole or in part, in the end it will not have any effect here other than to cost the state money and eventually as ICE becomes stretched more thin as a result of budget cuts Arizona Law enforcement will be foreced to keep illegal immigrants in our jails at our cost, or let them go. I do believe however when the economy improves this law will not deter illegal immigrants from coming here as this economy has and will for sometime depend on immigrant labor until such time as it is fixed where it needs to be fixed and thats at a Federal level.

The Supremacy Clause would be of some significance to the discussion IF the Arizona Law in ANY way contradicted Federal Law.

But it doesn't.

I'm certainly no legal eagle and don't pretend to know all the fine ponts of the law. But that has been my impression too. Not only does the Arizona law not do anything that the federal law doesn't also do, but it is somewhat less strong than the federal law.

It is absurd to think that a state can't pass its own laws regulating things that are pertinent to that state even when federal laws exists so long as the state laws do not negate or weaken the federal laws. Things like drugs and alcohol, speed limits, minimum wage, etc. all have or have had federal laws and also a separate layer of state laws in many states.

Whether Navy is correct that Arizona's law will stretch ICE more thinly amy lor may not be true, but it sure won't if Arizona law enforcement can enforce the law. SCOTUS I think will settle that issue. Whether Navy is right that the Arizona law will cost Arizona a lot of money also remains to be seen. If it turns out that the cost is more than the results merit, then I'm sure Arozona will rescind the law. Until such time, it has a lot of national approval and support and many more states will likely follow suit if it works out well.

It is absurd for the feds to argue that Arizona should not do the job that the federal government is supposed to do but has chosen not to do.

So then by that logic that would give Arizona the right to set up it's own border entry points, it's own passport offices, it's own post offices, it's own federal prisons, etc. You see if Arizona chooses to make any law that usurps Federal Law because in the mind of some the Federal Govt. is not enforcing it, then that would give Arizona the right to enforce all Federal Laws, everything ranging from international relations dealing with Arizona to any Federal matter within the state of Arizona. If that were the case why even have a constitutuion of for that matter why even have Arizona as part of the Union of Arizona wishes to be it's own immigration enforcement agency because they have decided that according to them the Govt. isnt doing it's job. I would venture to gather if you asked, some other parts of Arizona , especially the latino population here which is around 30% if ICE was doing it's job you might get a different answer. All that aside, it doesn't matter however as I have said the Court will more than likely uphold the law in part or in whole.

Again this Law SB1070 and Laws like it designed on theory and at the behest of groups like FAIR and it's authors, do not serve the citizens of Arizona and still further will as I have clearly shown cost this state. While I do tend to agree with the outcome in the Supreme Court when it comes to this Law, in the end this Law will have done nothing other than give Arizona and it's taxpayers a bigger burden to deal with not to mention our law enforcement officers. I might add again, that just because a law is popular does not make a law constitutional nor does it make it right, and in closing one more thing to consider, as the demographics change here in Arizona and they are, laws like these have a short shelf life and are nothing but a politcial exercise and solve nothing, and consider this, it would take one act of Congress to make SB1070 null and void and that would be to take the word state out of USC1357 which Arizona has relied so much to make its case on.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Supremacy Clause would be of some significance to the discussion IF the Arizona Law in ANY way contradicted Federal Law.

But it doesn't.

I'm certainly no legal eagle and don't pretend to know all the fine ponts of the law. But that has been my impression too. Not only does the Arizona law not do anything that the federal law doesn't also do, but it is somewhat less strong than the federal law.

It is absurd to think that a state can't pass its own laws regulating things that are pertinent to that state even when federal laws exists so long as the state laws do not negate or weaken the federal laws. Things like drugs and alcohol, speed limits, minimum wage, etc. all have or have had federal laws and also a separate layer of state laws in many states.

Whether Navy is correct that Arizona's law will stretch ICE more thinly amy lor may not be true, but it sure won't if Arizona law enforcement can enforce the law. SCOTUS I think will settle that issue. Whether Navy is right that the Arizona law will cost Arizona a lot of money also remains to be seen. If it turns out that the cost is more than the results merit, then I'm sure Arozona will rescind the law. Until such time, it has a lot of national approval and support and many more states will likely follow suit if it works out well.

It is absurd for the feds to argue that Arizona should not do the job that the federal government is supposed to do but has chosen not to do.

So then by that logic that would give Arizona the right to set up it's own border entry points, it's own passport offices, it's own post offices, it's own federal prisons, etc. You see if Arizona chooses to make any law that usurps Federal Law because in the mind of some the Federal Govt. is not enforcing it, then that would give Arizona the right to enforce all Federal Laws, everything ranging from international relations dealing with Arizona to any Federal matter within the state of Arizona. If that were the case why even have a constitutuion of for that matter why even have Arizona as part of the Union of Arizona wishes to be it's own immigration enforcement agency because they have decided that according to them the Govt. isnt doing it's job. I would venture to gather if you asked, some other parts of Arizona , especially the latino population here which is around 30% if ICE was doing it's job you might get a different answer. All that aside, it doesn't matter however as I have said the Court will more than likely uphold the law in part or in whole.

Again this Law SB1070 and Laws like it designed on theory and at the behest of groups like FAIR and it's authors, do not serve the citizens of Arizona and still further will as I have clearly shown cost this state. While I do tend to agree with the outcome in the Supreme Court when it comes to this Law, in the end this Law will have done nothing other than give Arizona and it's taxpayers a bigger burden to deal with not to mention our law enforcement officers. I might add again, that just because a law is popular does not make a law constitutional nor does it make it right, and in closing one more thing to consider, as the demographics change here in Arizona and they are, laws like these have a short shelf life and are nothing but a politcial exercise and solve nothing, and consider this, it would take one act of Congress to make SB1070 null and void and that would be to take the word state out of USC1357 which Arizona has relied so much to make its case on.

Come on Navy. You have been doing so well arguing your point of view up to now, and here you are building absurd straw men. Out of ammunition? Arizona has not taken over and no doubt does not want to take over responsibilities that are clearly the prerogative of the federal government. All Arizona wants is the ability to protect its own border and deal with those who break the law at Arizona's expense. Most especially when the federal government is not doing the job it is supposed to do according to its own law.

If you are right that the Arizona law will be excessively expensive and won't accomplish what it is supposed to do, then that will become evident within a reasonable time and Arizona will have to decide whether to keep the law or whether to rescind it. But if it will help to solve the problem that exists, it is worth a shot to try.

And if it is successful, I wonder whether nay sayers like you will ever admit that?

 

[Liability]

The Supremacy Clause would be of some significance to the discussion IF the Arizona Law in ANY way contradicted Federal Law.

But it doesn't.

I'm certainly no legal eagle and don't pretend to know all the fine ponts of the law. But that has been my impression too. Not only does the Arizona law not do anything that the federal law doesn't also do, but it is somewhat less strong than the federal law.

It is absurd to think that a state can't pass its own laws regulating things that are pertinent to that state even when federal laws exists so long as the state laws do not negate or weaken the federal laws. Things like drugs and alcohol, speed limits, minimum wage, etc. all have or have had federal laws and also a separate layer of state laws in many states.

Whether Navy is correct that Arizona's law will stretch ICE more thinly amy lor may not be true, but it sure won't if Arizona law enforcement can enforce the law. SCOTUS I think will settle that issue. Whether Navy is right that the Arizona law will cost Arizona a lot of money also remains to be seen. If it turns out that the cost is more than the results merit, then I'm sure Arozona will rescind the law. Until such time, it has a lot of national approval and support and many more states will likely follow suit if it works out well.

It is absurd for the feds to argue that Arizona should not do the job that the federal government is supposed to do but has chosen not to do.

So then by that logic that would give Arizona the right to set up it's own border entry points, it's own passport offices, it's own post offices, it's own federal prisons, etc. You see if Arizona chooses to make any law that usurps Federal Law because in the mind of some the Federal Govt. is not enforcing it, then that would give Arizona the right to enforce all Federal Laws, everything ranging from international relations dealing with Arizona to any Federal matter within the state of Arizona. If that were the case why even have a constitutuion of for that matter why even have Arizona as part of the Union of Arizona wishes to be it's own immigration enforcement agency because they have decided that according to them the Govt. isnt doing it's job. I would venture to gather if you asked, some other parts of Arizona , especially the latino population here which is around 30% if ICE was doing it's job you might get a different answer. All that aside, it doesn't matter however as I have said the Court will more than likely uphold the law in part or in whole.

Again this Law SB1070 and Laws like it designed on theory and at the behest of groups like FAIR and it's authors, do not serve the citizens of Arizona and still further will as I have clearly shown cost this state. While I do tend to agree with the outcome in the Supreme Court when it comes to this Law, in the end this Law will have done nothing other than give Arizona and it's taxpayers a bigger burden to deal with not to mention our law enforcement officers. I might add again, that just because a law is popular does not make a law constitutional nor does it make it right, and in closing one more thing to consider, as the demographics change here in Arizona and they are, laws like these have a short shelf life and are nothing but a politcial exercise and solve nothing, and consider this, it would take one act of Congress to make SB1070 null and void and that would be to take the word state out of USC1357 which Arizona has relied so much to make its case on.

Instead of dealing with your rather silly hypotheticals, let's get down to it.

With specificity, please point out what provision of the AZ law supposedly contradicts the Federal Immigration Law.

 

[Navy1960]

I'm certainly no legal eagle and don't pretend to know all the fine ponts of the law. But that has been my impression too. Not only does the Arizona law not do anything that the federal law doesn't also do, but it is somewhat less strong than the federal law.

It is absurd to think that a state can't pass its own laws regulating things that are pertinent to that state even when federal laws exists so long as the state laws do not negate or weaken the federal laws. Things like drugs and alcohol, speed limits, minimum wage, etc. all have or have had federal laws and also a separate layer of state laws in many states.

Whether Navy is correct that Arizona's law will stretch ICE more thinly amy lor may not be true, but it sure won't if Arizona law enforcement can enforce the law. SCOTUS I think will settle that issue. Whether Navy is right that the Arizona law will cost Arizona a lot of money also remains to be seen. If it turns out that the cost is more than the results merit, then I'm sure Arozona will rescind the law. Until such time, it has a lot of national approval and support and many more states will likely follow suit if it works out well.

It is absurd for the feds to argue that Arizona should not do the job that the federal government is supposed to do but has chosen not to do.

So then by that logic that would give Arizona the right to set up it's own border entry points, it's own passport offices, it's own post offices, it's own federal prisons, etc. You see if Arizona chooses to make any law that usurps Federal Law because in the mind of some the Federal Govt. is not enforcing it, then that would give Arizona the right to enforce all Federal Laws, everything ranging from international relations dealing with Arizona to any Federal matter within the state of Arizona. If that were the case why even have a constitutuion of for that matter why even have Arizona as part of the Union of Arizona wishes to be it's own immigration enforcement agency because they have decided that according to them the Govt. isnt doing it's job. I would venture to gather if you asked, some other parts of Arizona , especially the latino population here which is around 30% if ICE was doing it's job you might get a different answer. All that aside, it doesn't matter however as I have said the Court will more than likely uphold the law in part or in whole.

Again this Law SB1070 and Laws like it designed on theory and at the behest of groups like FAIR and it's authors, do not serve the citizens of Arizona and still further will as I have clearly shown cost this state. While I do tend to agree with the outcome in the Supreme Court when it comes to this Law, in the end this Law will have done nothing other than give Arizona and it's taxpayers a bigger burden to deal with not to mention our law enforcement officers. I might add again, that just because a law is popular does not make a law constitutional nor does it make it right, and in closing one more thing to consider, as the demographics change here in Arizona and they are, laws like these have a short shelf life and are nothing but a politcial exercise and solve nothing, and consider this, it would take one act of Congress to make SB1070 null and void and that would be to take the word state out of USC1357 which Arizona has relied so much to make its case on.

Instead of dealing with your rather silly hypotheticals, let's get down to it.

With specificity, please point out what provision of the AZ law supposedly contradicts the Federal Immigration Law.

Go back and read my posts, and nothing I have posted has not been backed up with facts. As for my so called hypotheticals, I tend to believe in the 9th was correct in this matter all economic concerns aside.

- Requiring a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped;


- Forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person's immigration status is determined;

- Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry federally issued documentation;

- Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident;

- Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States.

As I have said many times, none of this makes much difference though based on the sheer bumbling of the Govts. attorneys to make their case before the Court. It's my feeling that SB1070 will in whole or in part be upheld, and that being the case, much of what I have said, laws like SB1070 accomplish nothing other than to cost this state quite a bit in economic terms. As for those in favor of law's like SB-1070, why not these fervor for funding the real problem here and thats border security and reforming the immigration systems as well as giving Federal authorities the tools to enforce Federal Law. You do realize we as a nation there at any given time about 2000 plus projects in the DOD Budget the GAO labels as pork each year and that represents about 50 plus percent of what we spend on the border patrol? If one War Supplimental was used to defend this nation and was divereted into the Border Patrol then perhaps we might be able to secure the border. None of this matters however, because bills like SB1070 again will end up costing the state more than it does good. Frankly I find it really interesting the authors of this bill are touting the fact they will balance the 1 billion dollar state budget shortfall in a few years using the same tax base, when those undocumented people they seek to kick out of this state represented around 2.4 billion in sales tax revenue. So much for your hypotheticals, it would serve a lot of you well who support this bill to do a little reading about our state or live here for a little bit to understand that a lot of people here in Arizona are in favor of immigration reform, and several like me are more practical and see bills like SB-1070 as an over-reach but that remains to be resolved by the court and even so, think that reform begins where it should begin and thats at the Federal Level.

 

[Liability]

So then by that logic that would give Arizona the right to set up it's own border entry points, it's own passport offices, it's own post offices, it's own federal prisons, etc. You see if Arizona chooses to make any law that usurps Federal Law because in the mind of some the Federal Govt. is not enforcing it, then that would give Arizona the right to enforce all Federal Laws, everything ranging from international relations dealing with Arizona to any Federal matter within the state of Arizona. If that were the case why even have a constitutuion of for that matter why even have Arizona as part of the Union of Arizona wishes to be it's own immigration enforcement agency because they have decided that according to them the Govt. isnt doing it's job. I would venture to gather if you asked, some other parts of Arizona , especially the latino population here which is around 30% if ICE was doing it's job you might get a different answer. All that aside, it doesn't matter however as I have said the Court will more than likely uphold the law in part or in whole.

Again this Law SB1070 and Laws like it designed on theory and at the behest of groups like FAIR and it's authors, do not serve the citizens of Arizona and still further will as I have clearly shown cost this state. While I do tend to agree with the outcome in the Supreme Court when it comes to this Law, in the end this Law will have done nothing other than give Arizona and it's taxpayers a bigger burden to deal with not to mention our law enforcement officers. I might add again, that just because a law is popular does not make a law constitutional nor does it make it right, and in closing one more thing to consider, as the demographics change here in Arizona and they are, laws like these have a short shelf life and are nothing but a politcial exercise and solve nothing, and consider this, it would take one act of Congress to make SB1070 null and void and that would be to take the word state out of USC1357 which Arizona has relied so much to make its case on.

Instead of dealing with your rather silly hypotheticals, let's get down to it.

With specificity, please point out what provision of the AZ law supposedly contradicts the Federal Immigration Law.

Go back and read my posts, and nothing I have posted has not been backed up with facts. As for my so called hypotheticals, I tend to believe in the 9th was correct in this matter all economic concerns aside.

- Requiring a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped;


- Forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person's immigration status is determined;

- Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry federally issued documentation;

- Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident;

- Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States.

As I have said many times, none of this makes much difference though based on the sheer bumbling of the Govts. attorneys to make their case before the Court. It's my feeling that SB1070 will in whole or in part be upheld, and that being the case, much of what I have said, laws like SB1070 accomplish nothing other than to cost this state quite a bit in economic terms. As for those in favor of law's like SB-1070, why not these fervor for funding the real problem here and thats border security and reforming the immigration systems as well as giving Federal authorities the tools to enforce Federal Law. You do realize we as a nation there at any given time about 2000 plus projects in the DOD Budget the GAO labels as pork each year and that represents about 50 plus percent of what we spend on the border patrol? If one War Supplimental was used to defend this nation and was divereted into the Border Patrol then perhaps we might be able to secure the border. None of this matters however, because bills like SB1070 again will end up costing the state more than it does good. Frankly I find it really interesting the authors of this bill are touting the fact they will balance the 1 billion dollar state budget shortfall in a few years using the same tax base, when those undocumented people they seek to kick out of this state represented around 2.4 billion in sales tax revenue. So much for your hypotheticals, it would serve a lot of you well who support this bill to do a little reading about our state or live here for a little bit to understand that a lot of people here in Arizona are in favor of immigration reform, and several like me are more practical and see bills like SB-1070 as an over-reach but that remains to be resolved by the court and even so, think that reform begins where it should begin and thats at the Federal Level.

No. That's just a list of contentions. But you have failed to demonstrate HOW any of those things CONFLICT with Federal Law.

Indeed, it is a better and more accurate contention to suggest that each one of those things is specifically approved by Federal Immigration Law.

You DO realize that the Immigration and Nationality Act itself CALLS upon the States to render assistance and cooperation, right?

Here's a little snippet of the Landmark Legal Amicus brief:

III. Congress Intends Cooperation Between
The States And The Federal Government
In Immigration Matters.
There are over 11 million illegal immigrants in
the United States, as of March 2010. Jeffrey Passel
and D’Vera Cohn, Unauthorized Immigrant Population:
National and State Trends, 2010, Pew Research
Center, Feb. 1, 2011, available at Home Page.
pewhispanic.org/2011/02/01/unauthorized-immigrantpopulation-
brnational-and-state-trends-2010/. There are
approximately 18,000 Border Patrol agents assigned
to the Southwest border of the United States. Any
suggestion that Congress intends the immigration
laws to be enforced by the federal government alone
without state and local cooperation is ludicrous.

* * * *

The INA invites the states to assist in the enforcement
of federal immigration law. It also directs
the Executive Branch to cooperate with state efforts
to identify individuals illegally in the country. 8 U.S.C.
Section 1357(g)(10). In addition, the INA expressly
prohibits the Executive Branch from disregarding
Congress’s mandate for state and federal cooperation
in the communication of immigration-related information.
8 U.S.C. Section 1373(c).

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/11-182tsacLandmarkLegalFoundation.pdf

With that in mind, you NEED to show how or why ANY of the provisions of the AZ law CONFLICT with Federal Immigration Law(s). And I have a hint for you. None of it does.

 

[chanel]

I think Navy makes a compelling argument about the cost and feasibility of enforcing this law. But that is not the issue before the Court. What a waste of time.

 

[Liability]

I think Navy makes a compelling argument about the cost and feasibility of enforcing this law. But that is not the issue before the Court. What a waste of time.

Since when has government (State or Federal) cared about a trifling thing like the feasibility of enforcing the laws it puts on the books?

 

[Navy1960]

The Court does quite a bit in OSHA cases and EPA cases.

Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute
The Court held the Secretary applied the act inappropriately. To comply with the statute, the secretary must determine 1) that a health risk of a substance exists at a particular threshold and 2) Decide whether to issue the most protective standard, or issue a standard that weighs the costs and benefits. Here, the secretary failed to first determine that a health risk of substance existed for the chemical benzene when workers were exposed at 1 part per million. Data only suggested the chemical was unsafe at 10 parts per million. Thus, the secretary had failed the first step of interpreting the statute, that is, finding that the substance posed a risk at that level.

In the years since passage of the Act, the concept of feasibility has been tested in a number of courts and for a number of OSHA standards. The feasibility concept has two aspects: technological feasibility and economic feasibility. The courts have defined an economically infeasible standard as one that would make "financial viability generally impossible" for an industry (Industrial Union Dep't. v. Hodgson (the Vinyl Chloride decision (1975)). A later Supreme Court case (American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan (the Cotton Dust decision (1981)) ruled that OSHA must determine "that the industry will maintain long term profitability and competitiveness when establishing the economic feasibility of a standard." (Economic feasibility is discussed in the context of the proposed ergonomics program standard in Chapter VI of this preliminary economic analysis.)
Chapter III: Technological Feasibility

As to your Constitutional points, I have pointed out several times, that I believe this law SB1070 will be upheld in part or in whole , however here is more information for you.

Pennsylvania vs Nelson 350 U.S. 497 (1956)

"When Congress has taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go." i.e. SB1070

Second, the federal statutes "touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system [must] be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

Congress having thus treated seditious conduct as a matter of vital national concern, it is in no sense a local enforcement problem. As was said in the court below: "Sedition against the United States is not a local offense. It is a crime against the Nation. As such, it should be prosecuted and punished in the Federal courts, where this defendant has, in fact, been prosecuted and convicted and is now under sentence. It is not only important, but vital, that such prosecutions should be exclusively within the control of the Federal Government. . . . "

Third, enforcement of state sedition acts presents a serious danger of conflict with the administration of the federal program. Since 1939, in order to avoid a hampering of uniform enforcement of its program by sporadic local prosecutions, the Federal Government has urged local authorities not to intervene in such matters, but to turn over to the federal authorities immediately and unevaluated all information concerning subversive activities...."



You asked I will tell you, while state laws that are equal to federal law such as SB1070 and on thier surface appear to work in conjunction with Federal Law the enfocement of that laws "occupies the field" of Federal enforcement and is therefor preempting Federal Law and therefor violates Article VI clause 2.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[2]
1.Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
2."...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

As for for your posting in 8 USC 1357

(5)With respect to each officer or employee of a State or political subdivision who is authorized to perform a function under this subsection, the specific powers and duties that may be, or are required to be, exercised or performed by the individual, the duration of the authority of the individual, and the position of the agency of the Attorney General who is required to supervise and direct the individual, shall be set forth in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or political subdivision.

State involvement in immigration matters and has been a Federal matter subject to Federal oversight, if a state passes a law that that "preempts" this section of the agreement, which it clearly does, more specifically the whole law takes authority away from the Attorney General and places it in the hands of the state. While we stand on different sides of this issue, I am not in disagreement with you that this law will not be uphelp in part of in whole, where most of my contention with this law is, is that it is is simply an exercise in nonsense and a costly one at that for the citizens here, when money much needed by this state and studies done by the states of Tx. Arizona, and many others constantly show that and I've shown in posting after posting here, that even if these immigration laws were in effect the offset loss of that tax base would eventually hurt the local economies, so it's best we focus where it needs to be focused.

1. Federal Immigration enforcement ( i.e. existing laws)
2. Guest Worker Program
3. Reforming the citizenship process

 

[Foxfyre]

I think Navy makes a compelling argument about the cost and feasibility of enforcing this law. But that is not the issue before the Court. What a waste of time.

Since when has government (State or Federal) cared about a trifling thing like the feasibility of enforcing the laws it puts on the books?

Again, if SCOTUS rules the Arizona law constitutional, and if the Arizona law should cost more than the benefits of the law, or the law proves to be more trouble than it is worth to enforce it, I am pretty sure Arizona will rescind the law.

Until then, I and millions of others will be watching. Currently a strong majority of Americans like the law and are behind Arizona 100%. If it delivers as advertised, we can expect many more states to follow suit. If Navy's doom and gloom forecast turns out to be correct, then okay. Scrap the law and move on.

 

[Liability]

The Court does quite a bit in OSHA cases and EPA cases.

Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute
The Court held the Secretary applied the act inappropriately. To comply with the statute, the secretary must determine 1) that a health risk of a substance exists at a particular threshold and 2) Decide whether to issue the most protective standard, or issue a standard that weighs the costs and benefits. Here, the secretary failed to first determine that a health risk of substance existed for the chemical benzene when workers were exposed at 1 part per million. Data only suggested the chemical was unsafe at 10 parts per million. Thus, the secretary had failed the first step of interpreting the statute, that is, finding that the substance posed a risk at that level.

In the years since passage of the Act, the concept of feasibility has been tested in a number of courts and for a number of OSHA standards. The feasibility concept has two aspects: technological feasibility and economic feasibility. The courts have defined an economically infeasible standard as one that would make "financial viability generally impossible" for an industry (Industrial Union Dep't. v. Hodgson (the Vinyl Chloride decision (1975)). A later Supreme Court case (American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan (the Cotton Dust decision (1981)) ruled that OSHA must determine "that the industry will maintain long term profitability and competitiveness when establishing the economic feasibility of a standard." (Economic feasibility is discussed in the context of the proposed ergonomics program standard in Chapter VI of this preliminary economic analysis.)
Chapter III: Technological Feasibility

As to your Constitutional points, I have pointed out several times, that I believe this law SB1070 will be upheld in part or in whole , however here is more information for you.

Pennsylvania vs Nelson 350 U.S. 497 (1956)

"When Congress has taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go." i.e. SB1070

Second, the federal statutes "touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system [must] be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

Congress having thus treated seditious conduct as a matter of vital national concern, it is in no sense a local enforcement problem. As was said in the court below: "Sedition against the United States is not a local offense. It is a crime against the Nation. As such, it should be prosecuted and punished in the Federal courts, where this defendant has, in fact, been prosecuted and convicted and is now under sentence. It is not only important, but vital, that such prosecutions should be exclusively within the control of the Federal Government. . . . "

Third, enforcement of state sedition acts presents a serious danger of conflict with the administration of the federal program. Since 1939, in order to avoid a hampering of uniform enforcement of its program by sporadic local prosecutions, the Federal Government has urged local authorities not to intervene in such matters, but to turn over to the federal authorities immediately and unevaluated all information concerning subversive activities...."



You asked I will tell you, while state laws that are equal to federal law such as SB1070 and on thier surface appear to work in conjunction with Federal Law the enfocement of that laws "occupies the field" of Federal enforcement and is therefor preempting Federal Law and therefor violates Article VI clause 2.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[2]
1.Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
2."...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

As for for your posting in 8 USC 1357

(5)With respect to each officer or employee of a State or political subdivision who is authorized to perform a function under this subsection, the specific powers and duties that may be, or are required to be, exercised or performed by the individual, the duration of the authority of the individual, and the position of the agency of the Attorney General who is required to supervise and direct the individual, shall be set forth in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or political subdivision.

State involvement in immigration matters and has been a Federal matter subject to Federal oversight, if a state passes a law that that "preempts" this section of the agreement, which it clearly does, more specifically the whole law takes authority away from the Attorney General and places it in the hands of the state. While we stand on different sides of this issue, I am not in disagreement with you that this law will not be uphelp in part of in whole, where most of my contention with this law is, is that it is is simply an exercise in nonsense and a costly one at that for the citizens here, when money much needed by this state and studies done by the states of Tx. Arizona, and many others constantly show that and I've shown in posting after posting here, that even if these immigration laws were in effect the offset loss of that tax base would eventually hurt the local economies, so it's best we focus where it needs to be focused.

1. Federal Immigration enforcement ( i.e. existing laws)
2. Guest Worker Program
3. Reforming the citizenship process

No disrespect intended, but your wall of words post does not address a single thing I said.

Just answer the question. Be specific. Tell me what provision of the AZ law conflicts with ANY provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I don't think you can point to even one portion of it that does. But if you can, that provision should then fall. Severability would save the balance of the Act.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Court does quite a bit in OSHA cases and EPA cases.

Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute
The Court held the Secretary applied the act inappropriately. To comply with the statute, the secretary must determine 1) that a health risk of a substance exists at a particular threshold and 2) Decide whether to issue the most protective standard, or issue a standard that weighs the costs and benefits. Here, the secretary failed to first determine that a health risk of substance existed for the chemical benzene when workers were exposed at 1 part per million. Data only suggested the chemical was unsafe at 10 parts per million. Thus, the secretary had failed the first step of interpreting the statute, that is, finding that the substance posed a risk at that level.

In the years since passage of the Act, the concept of feasibility has been tested in a number of courts and for a number of OSHA standards. The feasibility concept has two aspects: technological feasibility and economic feasibility. The courts have defined an economically infeasible standard as one that would make "financial viability generally impossible" for an industry (Industrial Union Dep't. v. Hodgson (the Vinyl Chloride decision (1975)). A later Supreme Court case (American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan (the Cotton Dust decision (1981)) ruled that OSHA must determine "that the industry will maintain long term profitability and competitiveness when establishing the economic feasibility of a standard." (Economic feasibility is discussed in the context of the proposed ergonomics program standard in Chapter VI of this preliminary economic analysis.)
Chapter III: Technological Feasibility

As to your Constitutional points, I have pointed out several times, that I believe this law SB1070 will be upheld in part or in whole , however here is more information for you.

Pennsylvania vs Nelson 350 U.S. 497 (1956)

"When Congress has taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go." i.e. SB1070

Second, the federal statutes "touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system [must] be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

Congress having thus treated seditious conduct as a matter of vital national concern, it is in no sense a local enforcement problem. As was said in the court below: "Sedition against the United States is not a local offense. It is a crime against the Nation. As such, it should be prosecuted and punished in the Federal courts, where this defendant has, in fact, been prosecuted and convicted and is now under sentence. It is not only important, but vital, that such prosecutions should be exclusively within the control of the Federal Government. . . . "

Third, enforcement of state sedition acts presents a serious danger of conflict with the administration of the federal program. Since 1939, in order to avoid a hampering of uniform enforcement of its program by sporadic local prosecutions, the Federal Government has urged local authorities not to intervene in such matters, but to turn over to the federal authorities immediately and unevaluated all information concerning subversive activities...."



You asked I will tell you, while state laws that are equal to federal law such as SB1070 and on thier surface appear to work in conjunction with Federal Law the enfocement of that laws "occupies the field" of Federal enforcement and is therefor preempting Federal Law and therefor violates Article VI clause 2.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[2]
1.Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
2."...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

As for for your posting in 8 USC 1357

(5)With respect to each officer or employee of a State or political subdivision who is authorized to perform a function under this subsection, the specific powers and duties that may be, or are required to be, exercised or performed by the individual, the duration of the authority of the individual, and the position of the agency of the Attorney General who is required to supervise and direct the individual, shall be set forth in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or political subdivision.

State involvement in immigration matters and has been a Federal matter subject to Federal oversight, if a state passes a law that that "preempts" this section of the agreement, which it clearly does, more specifically the whole law takes authority away from the Attorney General and places it in the hands of the state. While we stand on different sides of this issue, I am not in disagreement with you that this law will not be uphelp in part of in whole, where most of my contention with this law is, is that it is is simply an exercise in nonsense and a costly one at that for the citizens here, when money much needed by this state and studies done by the states of Tx. Arizona, and many others constantly show that and I've shown in posting after posting here, that even if these immigration laws were in effect the offset loss of that tax base would eventually hurt the local economies, so it's best we focus where it needs to be focused.

1. Federal Immigration enforcement ( i.e. existing laws)
2. Guest Worker Program
3. Reforming the citizenship process

No disrespect intended, but your wall of words post does not address a single thing I said.

Just answer the question. Be specific. Tell me what provision of the AZ law conflicts with ANY provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I don't think you can point to even one portion of it that does. But if you can, that provision should then fall. Severability would save the balance of the Act.

Wasn't Arizona's immigration law written almost word for word of the Federal law?

 

[Liability]

The Court does quite a bit in OSHA cases and EPA cases.

Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute
The Court held the Secretary applied the act inappropriately. To comply with the statute, the secretary must determine 1) that a health risk of a substance exists at a particular threshold and 2) Decide whether to issue the most protective standard, or issue a standard that weighs the costs and benefits. Here, the secretary failed to first determine that a health risk of substance existed for the chemical benzene when workers were exposed at 1 part per million. Data only suggested the chemical was unsafe at 10 parts per million. Thus, the secretary had failed the first step of interpreting the statute, that is, finding that the substance posed a risk at that level.

In the years since passage of the Act, the concept of feasibility has been tested in a number of courts and for a number of OSHA standards. The feasibility concept has two aspects: technological feasibility and economic feasibility. The courts have defined an economically infeasible standard as one that would make "financial viability generally impossible" for an industry (Industrial Union Dep't. v. Hodgson (the Vinyl Chloride decision (1975)). A later Supreme Court case (American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan (the Cotton Dust decision (1981)) ruled that OSHA must determine "that the industry will maintain long term profitability and competitiveness when establishing the economic feasibility of a standard." (Economic feasibility is discussed in the context of the proposed ergonomics program standard in Chapter VI of this preliminary economic analysis.)
Chapter III: Technological Feasibility

As to your Constitutional points, I have pointed out several times, that I believe this law SB1070 will be upheld in part or in whole , however here is more information for you.

Pennsylvania vs Nelson 350 U.S. 497 (1956)

"When Congress has taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go." i.e. SB1070

Second, the federal statutes "touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system [must] be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

Congress having thus treated seditious conduct as a matter of vital national concern, it is in no sense a local enforcement problem. As was said in the court below: "Sedition against the United States is not a local offense. It is a crime against the Nation. As such, it should be prosecuted and punished in the Federal courts, where this defendant has, in fact, been prosecuted and convicted and is now under sentence. It is not only important, but vital, that such prosecutions should be exclusively within the control of the Federal Government. . . . "

Third, enforcement of state sedition acts presents a serious danger of conflict with the administration of the federal program. Since 1939, in order to avoid a hampering of uniform enforcement of its program by sporadic local prosecutions, the Federal Government has urged local authorities not to intervene in such matters, but to turn over to the federal authorities immediately and unevaluated all information concerning subversive activities...."



You asked I will tell you, while state laws that are equal to federal law such as SB1070 and on thier surface appear to work in conjunction with Federal Law the enfocement of that laws "occupies the field" of Federal enforcement and is therefor preempting Federal Law and therefor violates Article VI clause 2.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[2]
1.Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
2."...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

As for for your posting in 8 USC 1357

(5)With respect to each officer or employee of a State or political subdivision who is authorized to perform a function under this subsection, the specific powers and duties that may be, or are required to be, exercised or performed by the individual, the duration of the authority of the individual, and the position of the agency of the Attorney General who is required to supervise and direct the individual, shall be set forth in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or political subdivision.

State involvement in immigration matters and has been a Federal matter subject to Federal oversight, if a state passes a law that that "preempts" this section of the agreement, which it clearly does, more specifically the whole law takes authority away from the Attorney General and places it in the hands of the state. While we stand on different sides of this issue, I am not in disagreement with you that this law will not be uphelp in part of in whole, where most of my contention with this law is, is that it is is simply an exercise in nonsense and a costly one at that for the citizens here, when money much needed by this state and studies done by the states of Tx. Arizona, and many others constantly show that and I've shown in posting after posting here, that even if these immigration laws were in effect the offset loss of that tax base would eventually hurt the local economies, so it's best we focus where it needs to be focused.

1. Federal Immigration enforcement ( i.e. existing laws)
2. Guest Worker Program
3. Reforming the citizenship process

No disrespect intended, but your wall of words post does not address a single thing I said.

Just answer the question. Be specific. Tell me what provision of the AZ law conflicts with ANY provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I don't think you can point to even one portion of it that does. But if you can, that provision should then fall. Severability would save the balance of the Act.

Wasn't Arizona's immigration law written almost word for word of the Federal law?

Honestly, I don't think so. I have had the misfortune to try to decipher the gibberish of big portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It's on par with the ******* Tax code.

The Arizona law is only 16 pages long.

But its own words reveal that the Arizona lawmakers were intent on adhering to Federal law. They know they can't go further than the Federal law, since the Feds have presumptively pre-empted that field of law. But they can make sure that they forbid the political subdivisions of the State from making any laws or rules that don't go as FAR as the Federal Act. And that's what they start off with:

S.B. 1070
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Intent
3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
10 States.
11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
12 adding article 8, to read:
13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

-- http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf