US government sues Arizona over anti-immigration law

[Denny Crane]

That isn't what I asked. Why don't we deploy our services to other countries?

We do. Aren't there about 100K troops in Afghanistan right now?

Though the point is that we have obligations under our laws to provide Equal Protection Under the Law to anyone within our borders.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why does it matter where they live? We should just collect Social Security from people of every country. Borders don't mean anything, as you've stated again and again.

Borders do mean something. At our borders, the protection of our govt. basically ends. Though our borders extend well beyond the 48 states on the mainland and Hawaii and Alaska. In theory, our borders extend to include every US embassy in the world, our overseas military bases, and territories that aren't states.

Note that I made a distinction between someone living here paying taxes and collecting benefits (be those SS or other social services), and anyone who's never been here.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/07/28/carlos-slim-takes-manhattan-townhouse-for-44-million/

 

[Minstrel]

Borders don't mean anything, as you've stated again and again.

I think by "free borders," he meant "open borders" not "no borders." I agree with borders as a demarcation for where a particular government's direct influence ends, but I think they should be open for people to pass through freely.

 

[maxiep]

Borders do mean something. At our borders, the protection of our govt. basically ends. Though our borders extend well beyond the 48 states on the mainland and Hawaii and Alaska. In theory, our borders extend to include every US embassy in the world, our overseas military bases, and territories that aren't states.

Note that I made a distinction between someone living here paying taxes and collecting benefits (be those SS or other social services), and anyone who's never been here.

And shouldn't the government protect its citizens from invasion? What if MS-13--an organized gang--comes in illegally, come into a neighborhood and terrorizes it? What if they murder people?

Bottom line, Arizona wouldn't have to try to enforce the Federal laws if the Federal government would just do what it's supposed to do.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think by "free borders," he meant "open borders" not "no borders." I agree with borders as a demarcation for where a particular government's direct influence ends, but I think they should be open for people to pass through freely.

Free borders means people are free to cross in either direction.

 

[Denny Crane]

And shouldn't the government protect its citizens from invasion? What if MS-13--an organized gang--comes in illegally, come into a neighborhood and terrorizes it? What if they murder people?

Bottom line, Arizona wouldn't have to try to enforce the Federal laws if the Federal government would just do what it's supposed to do.

We have laws against terrorism and murder. Arrest those who do it, whether they're citizens or not, and put them on trial. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. BUT, they're subject to Due Process, right to face their accusors, right to a speedy trial, right to a trial by jury, etc.

 

[maxiep]

We have laws against terrorism and murder. Arrest those who do it, whether they're citizens or not, and put them on trial. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. BUT, they're subject to Due Process, right to face their accusors, right to a speedy trial, right to a trial by jury, etc.

Why not stop it its source? Why wait until it happens?

 

[barfo]

Why not stop it its source? Why wait until it happens?

Right. Let's invade Iraq because they have WMDs. No reason to wait until they use them.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Right. Let's invade Iraq because they have WMDs. No reason to wait until they use them.

barfo

1. Iraq is now a democracy. None of the Arab nations now fear Iraq invading their territory and wreaking havoc on their economies or oil reserves.

2. You go ahead and side with those who come to this country to commit crimes. I prefer to stop them at the border.

 

[Minstrel]

You go ahead and side with those who come to this country to commit crimes.

We hardly need your permission to side with the people who come here to commit crimes, thanks.

I prefer to stop them at the border.

I'd prefer to put them in Congress. We can keep an eye on them there, media will follow them around incessantly. It will be much harder for them to secretively deal drugs, murder people or steal US jobs (other than Congressmen/women, but those are jobs that decent Americans don't want anyway).

 

[barfo]

1. Iraq is now a democracy. None of the Arab nations now fear Iraq invading their territory and wreaking havoc on their economies or oil reserves.

For the moment. It's not like democracies can't invade other countries. See, e.g., US vs. Iraq.

2. You go ahead and side with those who come to this country to commit crimes. I prefer to stop them at the border.

You are on record saying that your objection to illegal immigration is the illegal part. So if the gummint said that it was legal to cross the border freely, you'd have no issue with it?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

For the moment. It's not like democracies can't invade other countries. See, e.g., US vs. Iraq.

No two democracies have ever gone to war against one another. The more democracies in the region, the better. Nice try, though.

You are on record saying that your objection to illegal immigration is the illegal part. So if the gummint said that it was legal to cross the border freely, you'd have no issue with it?

barfo

Aw, changing the subject much? You don't have to do high school debate to see a dropped argument on a flow chart.

 

[maxiep]

We hardly need your permission to side with the people who come here to commit crimes, thanks.



I'd prefer to put them in Congress. We can keep an eye on them there, media will follow them around incessantly. It will be much harder for them to secretively deal drugs, murder people or steal US jobs (other than Congressmen/women, but those are jobs that decent Americans don't want anyway).

I see you're in a silly mood. You have fun.

 

[barfo]

No two democracies have ever gone to war against one another. The more democracies in the region, the better. Nice try, though.

So, war is ok, as long as it isn't two democracies? Making war on "them" is just fine? You made the claim that others in the middle east had nothing to fear from Iraq now that it was a democracy. Since the others in the region aren't democracies, I don't see how they are protected by the magical no democracy-on-democracy action rule.

Aw, changing the subject much? You don't have to do high school debate to see a dropped argument on a flow chart.

Not sure why you think addressing illegal immigration is changing the subject, since this thread is titled "US government sues Arizona over anti-immigration law".

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

I see you're in a silly mood. You have fun.

We're both in silly moods, dear. I mean, people who don't know you as well as I do might think you were being huffy and petulant with your "You can feel free to take the side of criminals" comment, but I know you were being your mischievous, scampish self and I was bantering back in the same spirit.

People don't get your funny, light-hearted side. I do. It's okay...it's me!

 

[Denny Crane]

Why not stop it its source? Why wait until it happens?

All women should have forced abortions then? That way, no criminals will ever be born. Stop it at the source!

I don't get it. Sorry.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Denny, if the majority of the US agrees with you (more importantly, if the majority of Senate with consent of the President) and passes a law that says "The US Border is now OPEN!", then you can have all the free immigration you can ask for. Until then (which I don't think will happen soon), why are laws not being enforced?

 

[barfo]

Denny, if the majority of the US agrees with you (more importantly, if the majority of Senate with consent of the President) and passes a law that says "The US Border is now OPEN!", then you can have all the free immigration you can ask for. Until then (which I don't think will happen soon), why are laws not being enforced?

The obvious answer is that a lot of businesses depend on illegal immigrant labor, and cutting it off would cause them (and therefore the US) economic pain.

All the border patrol, fencing, and so on is basically a sham. If the US actually wanted to stop illegal immigration, they'd go after the businesses that hire them. That would be cheaper and far more effective, and less dangerous for all concerned.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Denny, if the majority of the US agrees with you (more importantly, if the majority of Senate with consent of the President) and passes a law that says "The US Border is now OPEN!", then you can have all the free immigration you can ask for. Until then (which I don't think will happen soon), why are laws not being enforced?

Political cowardice, political pandering, and conspiracy to defraud American Citizens by rigging elections and keeping wages low are the most obvious reasons.

 

[MARIS61]

The obvious answer is that a lot of criminal enterprises depend on illegal immigrant labor, and cutting it off would cause fair wages to be implemented for all legal American Citizens.

barfo

fixed.

 

[bluefrog]

We're both in silly moods, dear. I mean, people who don't know you as well as I do might think you were being huffy and petulant with your "You can feel free to take the side of criminals" comment, but I know you were being your mischievous, scampish self and I was bantering back in the same spirit.

People don't get your funny, light-hearted side. I do. It's okay...it's me!

Get a room guys

 

[maxiep]

All women should have forced abortions then? That way, no criminals will ever be born. Stop it at the source!

I don't get it. Sorry.

You don't get it. That's okay.

 

[maxiep]

Can someone tell me why the Federal Government can have a law on the books and choose not to enforce it, and if a state decides to enforce that law, they are prohibited from doing so?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001304----000-.html

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

 

[maxiep]

An interesting read: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/judge-...-arizona-immigration-statute/?singlepage=true

 

[maxiep]

And another: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/07/helplessness-and-anarchy.html

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, if the majority of the US agrees with you (more importantly, if the majority of Senate with consent of the President) and passes a law that says "The US Border is now OPEN!", then you can have all the free immigration you can ask for. Until then (which I don't think will happen soon), why are laws not being enforced?

Do you really think they enforce every law on the books? They physically can't - too many of them, not enough man hours to look for every infraction. So the issue becomes WHICH laws to enforce (see promulgation).

The feds (and many states) aren't exactly enforcing laws against marijuana these days. Selective enforcement of those laws have been problematic for a number of reasons (like look at all the black men arrested and jailed over it while whites skate).

Should these laws be enforced? http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070918092945AARxLfo

And yeah, I put the immigration law in that class of law.

On top of the blatant unconstitutionality of the Arizona law on at least a half-dozen grounds, check out the law of the land:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...$$busc8.wais&start=2069296&SIZE=2281&TYPE=PDF

1252c. Authorizing State and local law enforcement
officials to arrest and detain certain illegal
aliens

(a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
to the extent permitted by relevant State and
local law, State and local law enforcement officials
are authorized to arrest and detain an individual
who—

(1) is an alien illegally present in the United
States; and

(2) has previously been convicted of a felony
in the United States and deported or left the
United States after such conviction,
but only after the State or local law enforcement
officials obtain appropriate confirmation
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service
of the status of such individual and only for
such period of time as may be required for the
Service to take the individual into Federal custody
for purposes of deporting or removing the
alien from the United States.

(b) Cooperation

The Attorney General shall cooperate with the
States to assure that information in the control
of the Attorney General, including information
in the National Crime Information Center, that
would assist State and local law enforcement officials
in carrying out duties under subsection
(a) of this section is made available to such officials.

(Pub. L. 104–132, title IV, § 439, Apr. 24, 1996, 110
Stat. 1276.)

I'm having a tough time seeing how the Arizona law can amend federal law which permits a very narrow activity by local law enforcement officials. See if you read it the same way that I do:
A state may only arrest and detain an illegal alien IF and only IF he (or she) is here illegally AND has been convicted of a felony AND was deported because of that conviction.