A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[M14 Shooter]

A cop stops a speeding motorist. "License, registration, insurance card please."

Motorist can't comply fully. Cop asks motorist, "where do you come from?"

Motorist says (for example), "Mexico."

Cop: "Visa? Green Card?"

Motorist: "Ah no. I entered illegally or I overstayed my visa...."

Cop holds the errant motorist and calls ICE. ICE says "We're not interested. Thanks all the same."

The question then becomes WHY won't the ******* feds enforce our immigration laws?

Yes. The point I was getting at.
If the federal government won't enforce federal law, what's the point of having federal law?

The point, of course, is for our immigration laws to BE enforced. If this Administration wont do it. It's time to get a new Administration.

And thus, the opposition BY the administration - it doesn't WANT to enforce them, and so it acts to strike a law that would virtually force it to do so.

 

[Liability]

Yes. The point I was getting at.
If the federal government won't enforce federal law, what's the point of having federal law?

The point, of course, is for our immigration laws to BE enforced. If this Administration wont do it. It's time to get a new Administration.

And thus, the opposition BY the administration - it doesn't WANT to enforce them, and so it acts to strike a law that would virtually force it to do so.

At the very least, the AZ law would HIGHLIGHT and underscore what the Administration is refusing to do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The point, of course, is for our immigration laws to BE enforced. If this Administration wont do it. It's time to get a new Administration.

And thus, the opposition BY the administration - it doesn't WANT to enforce them, and so it acts to strike a law that would virtually force it to do so.

At the very least, the AZ law would HIGHLIGHT and underscore what the Administration is refusing to do.

Sure.

Imagine, the governor of AZ - or any other state that adopts similar laws - from time to time, releasing a list of immigration violations sent to the feds and then done nothing with. Egg on face, over easy.

The fact that a state cannot force the feds to do anything in no way constitutionally invalidates this law.

 

[Ravi]

The strawmen are strong in this thread.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

 

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjdjwuVzH-U&feature=related]SB 1070 Not Fair to Tax Payers, Law Enforcement -- Sheriff Tony Estrada, Santa Cruz County, AZ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[M14 Shooter]

The strawmen are strong in this thread.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

Not sure how this shows anything I said to be a strawman.

 

[BDBoop]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

The Queen Mother of Useful Idiots appears yet again, to interject her ignorance and partisan bigotrty into a conversation meant for adults - rather than consider such impossiibly simple things, shouldn't you get back to your usual slog of emptying garbage bins and vacuuming hallways?

The executive branch is compelled by the Preident's oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. The obligation you seek lies there. If a state, in good faith, informs the relevant federal agency that federal law had been violated and said agency does nothing with it, then that federal agency isn't doing the job required of it by the Constitution, and those responsible need to be held accountable.

You know, this was a pretty damn decent thread until you showed your sorry ass.

 

[Liability]

The strawmen are strong in this thread.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

That might be true. But it is not relevant to the topic.

The Administration (like past Administrations) does enforce immigration laws against those who find themselves ensnared in the criminal justice system. It doesn't even always take a criminal conviction to lead to removal proceedings being started.

The topic, however, deals with more than just those aliens who have committed crimes.

UNLESS an alien is convicted of a crime (however they define "conviction" -- which is not always as you might assume), the Federal Government appears to be unwilling to deport those found to BE here illegally.

That was kind of the point of the Arizona law. A cop stops a person for valid law enforcement purposes, asks some pretty basic questions, finds out that the individual in question is HERE illegally and then proceeds to advise the Federal immigration authorities.

How exactly is that improper behavior by any State?

And again, why the **** would the Federal Government object, much less find it desirable to oppose the AZ law in Court?

 

[Ravi]

The strawmen are strong in this thread.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

Not sure how this shows anything I said to be a strawman.

You keep claiming that the Feds aren't doing their job.

Obviously, they are.

 

[Liability]

The strawmen are strong in this thread.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

Not sure how this shows anything I said to be a strawman.

You keep claiming that the Feds aren't doing their job.

Obviously, they are.

In some ways and under some circumstances, yes.

In other ways, no. Not really.

 

[Ravi]

The strawmen are strong in this thread.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

That might be true. But it is not relevant to the topic.

The Administration (like past Administrations) does enforce immigration laws against those who find themselves ensnared in the criminal justice system. It doesn't even always take a criminal conviction to lead to removal proceedings being started.

The topic, however, deals with more than just those aliens who have committed crimes.

UNLESS an alien is convicted of a crime (however they define "conviction" -- which is not always as you might assume), the Federal Government appears to be unwilling to deport those found to BE here illegally.

That was kind of the point of the Arizona law. A cop stops a person for valid law enforcement purposes, asks some pretty basic questions, finds out that the individual in question is HERE illegally and then proceeds to advise the Federal immigration authorities.

How exactly is that improper behavior by any State?

And again, why the **** would the Federal Government object, much less find it desirable to oppose the AZ law in Court?

Right, because the immigration courts are clogged. So they are dropping cases to concentrate on getting rid of the criminal aliens.

The answer is not to do what Arizona did. The answer is to FUND more immigration courts and ICE employees. There is no reason at all for the FED to put their limited resources to work because Arizona legislators are xenophobic panderers.

 

[GHook93]

The strawmen are strong in this thread.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

Strawman, all illegal immigrants are criminals! Illegal immigration is, well, illegal!

Obama should be applauded for his deportations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The strawmen are strong in this thread.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

Not sure how this shows anything I said to be a strawman.

You keep claiming that the Feds aren't doing their job.

Nope. That's -not- what I said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

The Queen Mother of Useful Idiots appears yet again, to interject her ignorance and partisan bigotrty into a conversation meant for adults - rather than consider such impossiibly simple things, shouldn't you get back to your usual slog of emptying garbage bins and vacuuming hallways?

The executive branch is compelled by the Preident's oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. The obligation you seek lies there. If a state, in good faith, informs the relevant federal agency that federal law had been violated and said agency does nothing with it, then that federal agency isn't doing the job required of it by the Constitution, and those responsible need to be held accountable.

You know, this was a pretty damn decent thread until you showed your sorry ass.

And now, with your arrival, it is 100x worse.

Jillian did not respond to my answer to her question because she lacks the capacity to do so -- what's YOUR excuse?

 

[BDBoop]

I see. She lacks the capacity to do so. And since that's your perception, I won't bother answering your insult. Because that wasn't a question, "What's your excuse" - that was a slam.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see. She lacks the capacity to do so. And since that's your perception, I won't bother answering your insult. Because that wasn't a question, "What's your excuse" - that was a slam.

That's OK -- I figured you'd run away as well.

 

[Ernie S.]

Wednesday’s argument, the last of the term, was a rematch between the main lawyers in the health care case. Paul D. Clement, who argued for the 26 states challenging the health care law, represented Arizona. Mr. Verrilli again represented the federal government. In an unusual move, Chief Justice Roberts allowed the argument to go 20 minutes longer than the usual hour.

The two lawyers presented sharply contrasting accounts of what the Arizona law meant to achieve.

Mr. Clement said the state was making an effort to address a crisis by passing a law that complemented federal immigration policy. “Arizona borrowed the federal standards as its own,” he said, adding that the state was simply being more assertive in enforcing federal law than the federal government. Mr. Verrilli countered that Arizona’s approach was in conflict with the federal efforts. “The Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government,” he said.

Mr. Verrilli, whose performance in the health care case was sometimes halting and unfocused, seemed on Wednesday occasionally to frustrate justices who might have seemed likely allies. At one point Justice Sotomayor, addressing Mr. Verrilli by his title, said: “General, I’m terribly confused by your answer. O.K.? And I don’t know that you’re focusing in on what I believe my colleagues are trying to get to.”

The Arizona law advances what it calls a policy of “attrition through enforcement.” The Obama administration sued to block the law, saying it could not be reconciled with federal laws and policies. In legal terms, the case is about whether federal law “pre-empts,” or displaces, the challenged state law.

As a general matter, federal laws trump conflicting state laws under the Constitution’s supremacy clause. But no federal law bars the challenged provisions of the Arizona in so many words, and the question for the justices is whether federal and state laws are in such conflict that the state law must yield.

Last year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, blocked four provisions of the law on those grounds.

Most of the argument on Wednesday concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status. Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory inquiries to federal authorities from local police officers that are already commonplace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/u...aw-justices-are-again-in-political-storm.html

Thanks for that, Valerie. I appreciate the synthesis of the argument.

My question though may be more practical than legalistic. I want to know, in terms of cost, in terms of response requirements, what the US Govt is supposed to do every time AZ picks up an allegegd illegal?

AZ can't have deporation hearings.

AZ can't deport.

So then what?

I suppose the logical next step would be to sue ICE to force them to enforce their own laws.
To my non legal mind, assuming the AZ law passes muster 5:3 or better, such a suit would be a slam dunk.

 

[Liability]

The strawmen are strong in this thread.

PolitiFact | Obama says deportation of criminals up 70 percent under his administration

That might be true. But it is not relevant to the topic.

The Administration (like past Administrations) does enforce immigration laws against those who find themselves ensnared in the criminal justice system. It doesn't even always take a criminal conviction to lead to removal proceedings being started.

The topic, however, deals with more than just those aliens who have committed crimes.

UNLESS an alien is convicted of a crime (however they define "conviction" -- which is not always as you might assume), the Federal Government appears to be unwilling to deport those found to BE here illegally.

That was kind of the point of the Arizona law. A cop stops a person for valid law enforcement purposes, asks some pretty basic questions, finds out that the individual in question is HERE illegally and then proceeds to advise the Federal immigration authorities.

How exactly is that improper behavior by any State?

And again, why the **** would the Federal Government object, much less find it desirable to oppose the AZ law in Court?

Right, because the immigration courts are clogged. So they are dropping cases to concentrate on getting rid of the criminal aliens.

The answer is not to do what Arizona did. The answer is to FUND more immigration courts and ICE employees. There is no reason at all for the FED to put their limited resources to work because Arizona legislators are xenophobic panderers.

No. That's one possible answer. But another answer is for Arizona to do EXACTLY what it did -- something about which the Federal government has no basis in logic or the law to complain.

When Arizona -- a state which has borne a harsh brunt of the illegal immigration problem -- passed the law, it was acting on behalf of its people. Perfectly valid effort. When the cops comply with that law and notify ICE of the presence of an illegal, the FEDS (oh those poor overburdened folks) COULD say "hey thanks! We'll be right over." And the Immigration Courts -- which are administered in one of the most peculiar fashions in the history of administrative entities -- COULD fix their own house and DEAL with the mess.

If we are going to continue to be a sovereign nation, we really must make some significant efforts to attend to matters of sovereignty. Immigration is one of those things. No nation which cannot manage its own borders and immigrants can survive very long AS a sovereign nation. We do have a right to limit the numbers of outsiders who are granted permission to enter. We DO have the right -- even the duty -- to manage it in our own best national interests. And we do have an obligation ot enfoce those laws and evict the trespassers.

 

[BDBoop]

I see. She lacks the capacity to do so. And since that's your perception, I won't bother answering your insult. Because that wasn't a question, "What's your excuse" - that was a slam.

That's OK -- I figured you'd run away as well.

You trolls. You have such an easy job.

 

[Navy1960]

Of the total budget the largest percentage, 31 percent, is allocated to Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In the proposed budget the agency is asking for nearly $12 billion for Customs and Border Protection, up 2 percent from the current budget; and for $5.65 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a decrease of 4 percent from the 2012 budget.
ICE budget cut 4% in 2013 DHS budget | UTSanDiego.com

With enactment of the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution through March 18, 2011, (H.J.Res.
48/P.L. 112-6) Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security,
reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated
since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror
operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This estimate assumes that the current CR level continues through the
rest of the year and that agencies allocate reductions proportionately.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

The thing is SB1070 won't change the fact that spending on ICE by both Democrat and Republican Administrations when compared to what has been spent on say war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan or even perhaps the Department of Energy who's budget is 58 Billion you begin to see that from a practical standpoint, calls from Arizona Law Enforcement to ICE on suspects are not going to be much of a priority, rendering the law mute. The only other thing it will do is lend Arizona open to a whole host of lawsuits (take your pick on this one, racial profiling, wrongful arrest, etc. ) that will cost the state even more money. Just as food for thought here, Maricopa County..

His office has been the subject of thousands of lawsuits while he's been sheriff, leading to a reported $43 million in lawsuit settlements and expenses.

Joe Arpaio, Toughest Sheriff in U.S. - TIME

Now imagine if you will that number times every county, city and local here in Arizona and you begin to realize the cost of this to the taxpayers doesn't return much.