Also a country that is based on immigration really has no leg to stand on. It's not like we are running out of space.
Funny how when tons of people wanted to immigrate from Europe we were all for it, but when brown people started wanting to come over we had a problem with it.
(Note, as an illegal immigrant in France, I'm sensitive to this issue.)
We were all for it? When? Only in retrospect.
The country has a long history of "not too many of those people."
The thing I keep bumping my head against when contemplating this issue, is that "need for an inexpensive workforce." Economists will claim this is true, but economists - in my narrow experience - tend to be trapped in a narrow set of rules and formulas that somehow manage to fail again and again.
I'm more interested in people, and the last time I checked people are what drive an economy. And is there really a "need" for us to employ people at dirt poor wages, with no benefits, under illegal working conditions? Because that's what this really is, migrant workers allow farms, slaughter houses, construction projects, etc to pay their employees less than federal minimum wage and not give them the hours, breaks and benefits that our ancestors literally put their lives on the line to win on the picket line. I'm just not buying it.
Maybe the best way to solve this "immigration problem" is to insist that all employers do what they're SUPPOSED to do, even if it costs more. And if that cuts into profits at the top, then the top can either take a pay cut or go under--THAT's the economy at work.
I so agree with you - except it won't cut into profits at the top. Because the top are who are making the decisions. Instead, they'll do something that hurts different little guys in a different way - and buy off Congress to make it legal.
That said, I still agree with you.
I know you've got a background in immigration law but not Constitutional law (esp. pre-emption jurisprudence), but what are your thoughts on the merits of the judge's grounds for injunction. After reading through the decision, it struck my untrained brain as being mostly specious and likely to be overturned on appeal: particularly the part about conflating departmental enforcement policy with actual, you know, law.
None whatsoever. I'm on vacation and literally saw a headline. When I have more than my iPhone to work from next week I shall try to be more thorough.
(That being said, there probably is a standing issue in it all.)
Oh, pshaw. Everyone knows the Constitution consistently and inerrantly supports specific points of view and any claim to the contrary is naively wrong-headed thinking or disinformation spread by foreign subversives. OR BOTH.
After years of listening to Alaskan "Con'stushnll Scholars," I shudder at such things regularly.
I fail to see how a law that says, "Our state law enforcement people are required to enforce federal laws," is in any way a violation of the constitution. I don't think the federal government has a leg to stand on, considering they aren't enforcing their own damned laws. What are the border states supposed to do, sit back and let illegals overrun us, kill our citizens, flood our cities with drugs, and do NOTHING because it's the federal government's job? That is bullshit. No wonder Texas is talking about secession.
Gosh, I can't wait until 2012.
I'm pretty sure the part where law enforcement people are expected to stop people for looking like illegals is the unconstitutional part. Why? Well, what does an illegal alien look like? You tell me.
From my perpsective, it seems that this court decision represents the triumph of wishes over law. The wording of SB 1070 is explicitly deferential to Federal law and Bolton's interpretations and arguments strike me as uncompelling.
For example her reading of section 2B treats a single sentance as wholly independent of the surrounding paragraph as the basis for concluding that the law requires every arrest - even if no suspicion of illegality exists and a presumption of lawful residence has been established - result in an ICE inquiry.
The issue has been ignored for far too long and if this law is what it takes to push it up so that something gets done, then it's a good enough law for the job. Which really seems to be what the impetus was. If the Feds had done their job Arizona might not have had to.
The only good thing to be said about it.
I'm curious as to how Arizona's law attempts to negate the Constitution? The Arizona law is based on Federal law. I find it interesting that local law enforcement is allowed to help Federal officers in so many areas of federal jurisdiction such as, for example, kidnapping, but heaven forbid local law enforcement help the Feds in dealing with illegal immigration. That's all Arizona's law would do is codify that their local law enforcement is going to lend a hand to help out obviously overburdened Federal officials.
Also, the problem here is not with immigration. The problem is with illegal immigration.
2010-07-30 04:08 pm (UTC)
I'm probably going to regret chiming in, here, since I am to some extent speaking from ignorance (not having a lot of information on the particular case being discussed). However, I'll take an educated guess and say that the difference between kidnapping and immigration enforcement with respect to state authorities probably has something to do with a fairly obscure and poorly-understood area of our law known as concurrent jurisdiction.
To wit: kidnapping is both a state and federal crime. Violation of immigration laws is not, since states are not permitted to have immigration laws.