Immigration, The Preemption Doctrine And Nonsequitors

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:14:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At NRO, Andrew McCarthy writes:

Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. [. . .] If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?

As to why the Justice Department has not sued Rhode Island, I can not say, but whether such procedures violate the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with the preemption issue. It does raise an important point however, one that was stated by the NYTimes in an editorial today:

In the meantime, there are steps President Obama can take. He can deny Arizona access to federal databases of immigration status and refuse to allow the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to cooperate with state officials in handling people detained under the law. The government should end the misguided program allowing local deputies to enforce immigration law after taking an educational course.

If the Obama Administration is really serious about stopping Arizona-style abuses, it should take these steps immediately.

Speaking for me only

< How Many Will Agree to Spy Swap? | Federal Judge in Boston Rules Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Immigration, The Preemption Doctrine And Nonsequitors | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Then they may have to change federal law (none / 0) (#1)
by BTAL on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:21:01 PM EST

and cancel a bunch of existing MOUs

Section 287(g), Immigration and Nationality Act;
Delegation of Immigration Authority
...
Success Stories
ICE currently has 287 (g) MOAs with the Alabama Department of Public Safety/State Police, the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. ICE also has MOAs with the county sheriff's departments in Maricopa County, Ariz.; Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, Calif.; Cobb County, Ga.; Alamance, Gaston and Mecklenburg counties, N.C.; and Davidson County, Tenn.
287 (g) partnership success stories include use of the program in the field and with persons already in custody:

A Law Enforcement Partnership

A 287(g) partnership (none / 0) (#3)
by scribe on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:31:04 PM EST

is a voluntary contract between the feds and the locals. The feds can bow out of that any time they deem it in the best interest of the government to do so.

Indeed, I expect the district judge and the Court of Appeals judges (when someone appeals the district court) to ask the government exactly that - why they have not terminated all 287(g) agreements with Arizona and why they have not cut off Arizona's access to the databases.

I suspect the answer as to the first question would be to the effect that the 27(g) agreements with Arizona's locals both have some benefits to the government and allow the government to make sure malefactors in Arizona law enforcment (you know who) don't go even crazier than they already have. As to the second question, the same answer.


As scribe notes (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:49:39 PM EST

No need to change the law, just terminate the agreements with Arizona.


Selective application? (none / 0) (#9)
by BTAL on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:54:49 PM EST

Fred Astaire may need to provide some dancing pointers. At least in the eyes of public opinion.


Huh? (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:58:18 PM EST

Selective how? Arizona passed SB 1070.


By singling out AZ to void (none / 0) (#13)
by BTAL on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 02:03:50 PM EST

the existing MOA when the entire program is highly touted as a huge success nationwide. Per the ICE link above, the feds claim it is one of, if not their most effective program.

Along the lines of preemption, the feds also have a problem (at least politically for the administration) regarding the sanctuary cities and the blind eye turned towards those actions.

Gibbs was put on the spot yesterday and didn't have an answer.

Watch it here


AZ paased the law (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 02:12:41 PM EST

That's why they would be singled out. Not sure what part of that you are not registering.


Everyone understands AZ passed its law (none / 0) (#16)
by BTAL on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 02:16:28 PM EST

The issue is that the AZ law is in complete concurrence and support of the federal law as written and implemented specifically via 287(g).

IF the AZ law extended or usurped federal law, then sue and preempt away.

Effectively, the AZ law is on par with the existing 287(g) MOAs.


: Um, no the law is not (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by scribe on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:51:09 PM EST

First, the AZ law criminalizes presence without documents, while (if you'd read the complaint you'd have seen that) the feds not only do not criminalize presence without documents but also explicitly allow immigrants in some categories (humanitarian refugees, political asylees, inter alia) to be present without documents and does not provide documents for them.
Second, the AZ law mandates (through the private damages action against unzealous enforcers) arrest and charging of people whose papers do not meet the standard some idiot county mountie decides to set. By way of example I, as a native-born US citizen, would not have any suitable papers if the idiot county mountie decided my drivers' license (or even my US passport) might be a forgery. And you can bet the whole "suspected of presenting forged documents" angle will be a huge, truck-sized hole through which the AZ police will stuff anyone and everyone that they want to arrest who nonetheless presents papers.
And, of course, since immigration proceedings are civil proceedings where there is no right to (government-paid) counsel, no or limited compulsory process, and similarly limited rights, you are going to see native-born US citizens (poor, uneducated ones at first) being deported on the basis of some idiot county mountie deciding to arrest them for being an illegal immigrant even though they never left the country of their birth before.

: The federal government disagrees (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 02:19:49 PM EST

obviously. And since it is the federal government is charged with the conduct of immigration policy, and objects to the law, that pretty much decides the issue as a legal matter.
Sounds like you want to vote on this issue in 2012. That's your ticket for changing federal policy here.

Yeah (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:25:52 PM EST

And closing down all the ICE federal facilities in AZ that house undocumented workers, would wake up the sheriffs as well.

I think they'd get a better result (none / 0) (#4)
by scribe on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:33:09 PM EST

if it's waking up the sheriffs as the objective by cutting of the per diem they pay the local jails to house immigraton detainees. Most of those sheriffs configure their jails to run on those and would shortly go into a conniption of having to release people if they were not getting that per diem.


: OK (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:52:49 PM EST

Although, I would not put it past the sheriffs to leave the undocumented in the jails and let them starve, blaming the Feds for letting them starve...
And, I would not be surprised if sheriffs like Arpaio whose bigoted and racist constituents keep electing him, would set up internet live cams so that their constituents could watch the undocumented starve to death.

Sue Rhode Island... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:40:54 PM EST

and sue NYC for the stop and frisk nonsense...and every other state/city doing individual liberty dirty. We declare war on everything else, why not a war on police states? Bring these troubling trends to a head.

It just might save Obama's re-election chances... give lovers of liberty enough of a reason to hold our nose and pull the lever for him.

60 - 30 in the other direction (none / 0) (#7)
by waldenpond on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:51:32 PM EST

It's two to one in support of AZ type laws. 84% of Republicans and I think it was 60 or 64% of indies. Obama can't win with Dems alone, in fact they seem to the ones who aren't going to show up.


You forget (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by christinep on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 02:32:38 PM EST

that most people, outside the spotlight, will vote on other issues than the issue of immigration. The calculus from the Democratic standpoint--while obviously based upon several factors, including the reassertion of the federal role and responsibility in enforcing the supreme law of the land--certainly includes a look at those states where the immigration issue may have particular sway. For some Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, this issue is inextricably tied in with their expected Republican vote; yet, for the Latino/a demographic, this situation may well persuade a significant boost to the Democratic vote in states such as Nevada, Colorado, California, Texas, e.g. The voting analysis may be a bit more complicated that one would see at the outset in that there is more to gain for the Democrats position in the generational long-run (and, in certain districts, in the short run.)


Rove and Bush understood (5.00 / 4) (#36)
by MKS on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 05:56:14 PM EST

the politics of this.....

Latinos will remember who supported them and who did not....

It is about persuadable voters, I think, is the way BTD put it.....The (white) right wingers will vote as they always do.

Many Democrats and Independents kinda, sorta support the Arizona type law--not really realzing how anti-Latino the effects and intent of the statute really are.

When the issue subsides, the only people who will change their votes based on this are Latinos--who used to be Republicans.

It will probably show up in 2012. The GOP is cementing itself as the anti-Latino party....


African American shift from GOP (none / 0) (#26)
by Cream City on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 04:11:30 PM EST

had begun far earlier, first in FDR's New Deal in the '30s and then even more so with Truman's integration of the military in the late '40s. It's just that it was seen mainly in the North, without voter rights for them in most of the South -- and in the North, the numbers from the Great Migration still were not as evident in the '30s (but were more evident in the late '40s after WWII).

It was more evident in the '60s because more Southern AA's were voting (even before the voting rights campaigns needed in the Deep South holdout areas; much like school integration, voting rights did come without such conflicts in some parts of the South).

So RFK's push to aid MLK (it was RFK, who had a bit of a time persuading his bro) is one of those moments in history that mark demographic shifts going on for a while. But history really has few turning points with major shifts in a matter of hours, a day.

What may be more apt and instructive in this discussion, though, is what happened later in the '60s with LBJ's civil rights and voting rights acts . . . i.e., they brought in more African American voters but lost far, far more Dixiecrats who switched to the GOP. So we will see.


Didn't Ike do reasonably well (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by MKS on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:04:19 PM EST

with African Americans?

But, that would make sense, that the shift would occur over time and in part in response to the New Deal and Truman integrating the Armed Forces....


Ike was also the one who sent troops (none / 0) (#40)
by BTAL on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:07:31 PM EST

to Little Rock HS.


: And Ike would be to the left (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by MKS on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:14:04 PM EST

of Harry Reid, Jim Webb and many other Democrats today....
In fact, the only thing "conservative" about Ike was his unfortunate support of those fanning the flames of the Red Scare....which led him to allow the CIA to topple the democracy in Iran in 1953 and the democracy in Guatemala in 1954.
But the NY Times supported both coups--at least the one in Guatemala....going to show that the N.Y. Times always supports the administration on foreign policy when things get tight.

Goldwater really sealed the deal, (none / 0) (#34)
by MKS on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 05:50:29 PM EST

I would think.....By opposing the Civil Rights Act, that really doomed any chance of the Republicans getting a signficant portion of the African American vote....


Actually the dems voted more against (none / 0) (#39)
by BTAL on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:06:09 PM EST

the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did the republicans.

The original House version:[10]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[11]

* Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version:[10]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[10]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)


Sure, but what happened to all those (none / 0) (#42)
by MKS on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:18:22 PM EST

Democrats? They were conservatives.....

Liberal, Northern Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act. Those Republicans no longer exist. The modern-day Republican is like Strom Thurmond...or Rand Paul--who still has problems with the Civil Rights Act even today....

I grew up in Texas during that time....And, you betcha, Sister Sarah, there were a lot of racist Democrats....but they were not liberals....


Strom Thurmond is "modern day" (none / 0) (#45)
by BTAL on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:28:21 PM EST

hehehe, that's funny.

The dems filibustered for 83 days.

How did those "New Deal" dems go from being liberal to conservative in the space of 20-30 years?


Never were liberal (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by MKS on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:47:57 PM EST

The New Deal was very, very mainstream--centrist; FDR saved capitalism....Reagan supported the New Deal and FDR....

In the South, there were no Republicans....The big fights politically were always the Primaries.....

Just look at a map of the Confederate States and one of the Red States today--they pretty much match....

How is it that the Democrats usually get 90% of the African American vote? Are they all duped by the dreaded MSM? They are all that stupid?

Just watch what happens with the Latino vote. Bush II got probably a little over 40% of the Latino vote--and he supported the Democrats view of immigration reform including a pathway to citizenship. In 2008, McCain, who two-faced changed course on this, got 33%. If the Republicans keep banging the drum on this, they will drive up the Democrats share of the Latino vote to African American levels....

The younger Latinos are very, very Democratic.....And the school-aged kids in some states are close to majority Latino.....And the Latino share of the electorate is increasing....So, you have a future with majority Latino populations remembering the anti-Latino jihad of the Republican party.

Put another way, Bush II was regarded by Latinos as Ike was regarded by African Americans.....But things went south from there.....

The trend is clear and you guys just can't help yourselves....Illegal immigration is actually down.....but you guys keep charging on.


: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:57:11 PM EST

Bush was very careful to distance himself from Wilson, and Prop 187.
Wilson rationalized the move by saying that Texas was very different from CA. Well the demographics all over, they be a changing...

Thanks CC (none / 0) (#35)
by christinep on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 05:53:10 PM EST

Very instructive; a good explanation. Of course, these changes follow a slower--incremental--pattern than my chosen emphasis. A good reminder, also, about the "lost Dixiecrats" (and, the suggestion of Nixon's Southern Strategy to come.) One question I have: While the voting pattern shifts do occur over time, are there any current analyses as to the rate of identification shifts, especially in view of more expansive communication technology? Has the rate of voter shifts "speeded up" -- with TV in the 60s and with the internet in the aughts?


: You're welcome, CP :-) (none / 0) (#51)
by Cream City on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 08:07:04 PM EST

and that's a good question. Haven't seen it asked and thus answered exactly that way, though. It may be that more modern media aka teevee had impact on the highest turnout ever, LBJ's election -- attributed to the JFK's assassination, the nation coming together, etc., but we came together watching it all on teevee for days (in the days of only a few channels from which to choose, and all ran it all the time).
As for teevee since then, cable has made it a different animal -- called narrowcasting, with all its segmenting of the market into hundreds of channels, rather than broadcasting as before -- and the studies of the internet so far would suggest the same, I think. Although the growth of the Independents also is attributed to other factors in studies I've read, the market segmenting of cable and the interne also could be causal.
There are multiple voices yelling at us for decades now. We just have not seen a Walter Cronkite or a sole network with the power that they had then. Despite the decline of newspaper readership in the same decades, the impact may be the same as the 19th-century era of multiple newspaper voices, many newspapers even in the same town (and, as BTD correctly noted not long ago, those were primarily advocotary rather than "objective" then, too, like cable and the internet today). It will be interesting to see if the impact on politics is similar . . . as I keep seeing signs of the fracturing of the 1840s and 1850s.
(Still, that was fracturing over a major issue, expansion of slavery, and the similar issue today of reproductive rights, differing state by state despite Roe v. Wade, just does not matter as much to the pols and the populace and has died down . . . for now. Who knows, maybe restricting the rights of the majority of Americans as defined by the Supremes will matter again someday.)

Yes but (none / 0) (#59)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:23:02 PM EST

the Dixiecrats were always going to end up leaving on cultural grounds- as you handily pointed out the Northern wing of the Republican party was already being marginalized, the weakness in the South was a historical artifact due in large part to the circumstances surrounding the founding of the GOP (FDR didn't hugely increase Democratic support in the south for this reason- it was already ridiculously high- and had been for more nearly half a century at that point- basically post-Reconstruction)- so LBJ did both the longterm political thing and the right thing morally, with only a small short term consequence (in effect trading the north for the south).


He ain't winning Repubs... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 01:57:27 PM EST

no matter what he does...tried and true dems will fall in line anyway, they always do.

Many citizens concerned about the police state are the same who don't see a point in voting...an aggresive campaign to preserve individual liberty could get 'em back in the game...but I'm probably pipe-dreaming, the police state is more popular than I care to admit.


Anybody see the latest polls? (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 02:01:07 PM EST

Looks like the Dems are on the losing side of this.

I remember the Prop 187 polls (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 02:11:52 PM EST

An add-on (none / 0) (#19)
by christinep on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 02:46:27 PM EST

When the federal government, via John and Robert Kennedy, provided both legal and emotional support to Martin Luther King in a jail cell and to the growing Civil Rights movement, I understand that it was not altogether clear what the upshot would be. I recall from historical narratives, anecdotes from my dad, and my little girl memories that the "world" was a bit different. A sizeable number of Americans in the early 1960s (and, definitely, in the earlier Little Rock late 1950s) were at least somewhat supportive of the various state discrimination systems. When the Kennedys acted apart from the status quo, the change began to grow in many ways. From a practical voting dynamic, the African American vote shifted dramatically from the old party of Lincoln (would you believe, the GOP), and remains in the 90+ percent Democratic column thereafter.
There are polls...and, then there is the poll of polls at the voting booth this year (and the years down the road.)


Illegal immigration does not (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 03:59:25 PM EST

carry the moral implications that discrimination did. Not even close.

At the end of the day the deal remains.

This law is identical to what the Feds are supposed to do.

And the people involved are illegally here taking jobs and resources from American citizens and people here legally.


Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 04:09:11 PM EST

Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you slice it. All the fear and concern that Mexicans are taking jobs and taking financial advantage of our system on the backs of hard working Americans are exactly the same arguments leveled by the same people who fought against the civil rights movement and continue to.

AZ did not recognize Martin Luther King day, and withstood a boycott for five years. The anti-mexican sentiment dressed up in rhetoric about "illegals" is no different.


Nonsense (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 04:37:12 PM EST

It is the people who are coming across the border who are breaking the law.

Would you consider enforcing laws against bank robbery "bigotry?"

No one has the right to enter the country without permission.

That be a fact that you can't change.

Face it. You want open borders.


Latinos (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 04:53:17 PM EST

Adam Bustos, a third-generation Mexican-American, has voted Republican since Ronald Reagan ran for president. But he has been reconsidering his party affiliation since Arizona State Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation's toughest immigration law last month.
"I've been thinking I might leave the party," said Mr. Bustos, a 58-year-old Arizona native. "A lot of my Latino Republican friends have been talking about it after this law."....
Latinos are the fastest growing demographic group in the U.S. After spending the first part of this decade loosening their historical ties to the Democratic Party, Latinos have been returning to the Democratic fold over such issues as the economy and immigration.

Then he should leave if he doesn't want (none / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 09:28:10 PM EST

illegal immigrants caught.


to be clearer (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 09:41:33 PM EST

he should leave the Repub party if he doesn't like its policies.


What if he (none / 0) (#61)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:27:16 PM EST

doesn't want to be hassled for his papers?


: He can sue. (none / 0) (#63)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 07:01:52 AM EST

Smokescreen (none / 0) (#31)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 04:50:41 PM EST

Tell that to the 2 million hispanics living in AZ who are harassed on a daily basis.

And tell that to the 46,050,982 voters in the US who are discriminated against because of their heritage.


: I would be happy to (none / 0) (#52)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 09:27:28 PM EST

tell anyone that the problem is illegal immigrants.
Without them there is no problem.
I do hope that is not to complex for you to understand.

Latino bashing carries a lot of (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by MKS on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 05:58:37 PM EST

moral implication.....


Moral implications (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by christinep on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:21:48 PM EST

Thanking you for your comment.... Permit me one excursion into the Judeo-Christian background. One of the most striking stories in the New Testament is that of the Good Samaritan (especially considering the cultural setting of the Samaritan as an alien/foreigner.) Throughout Jesus' teachings and parables are directives to treat the alien/the foreigner/the unwanted humanely (no matter their background.)

Now I don't know jimakaPPJ's spiritual inclinations, and there is no need to know. But, if purports to deny a moral component, all I can say is that the moral lessons taught to me would directly contradict his position. Very directly and unconditionally contradict his disregard for the human needs of the foreigner, alien, or immigrant (illegal or legal.)


So true (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by MKS on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:27:43 PM EST

National chauvinism is hard to square with the Sermon on the Mount and the New Testament generally....

The real religion tends to be the conservative view (some would say distortion) of American Exceptionalism.


Nonsense aside (none / 0) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 09:40:12 PM EST

and I do apologize for being blunt...

But this is really a simple case of people trespassing.

Without them there would be no problem and no need for a law.

None of the posturing and claims can hide that simple point.

Now, if you oppose national borders and favor open borders, please be so kind as to so state.


In the old days, your comments (none / 0) (#58)
by christinep on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 10:31:49 PM EST

would often be referred to as "a broken record."
(In one regard, mine would probably be so regarded as well.) Look...I, for one, am not for open borders. Like the President and many, many others in this great country, I support comprehensive reform. The outline of that reform has been known for some time. One point: Neither the sponsors of comprehensive immigration reform nor the numbers that support it call for rounding up/corralling/yellow-starring/shooting/or otherwise deporting every alien who is not authorized to be here. For a lot of reasons. To begin with, it is not practically possible (given the numbers involved after Reagan's total amnesty) and it would totally bankrupt our efforts at any meaningful foreign policy. The comprehensive plan is a staging and organizational plan to move beyond the stalemate of the "but, but, but" that goes nowhere and to move toward improved border control and an organized, systematic approach to the unenforceable situation that has devolved over the years.

Another comment: Your repeated references, jimakaPPJ, to a conclusion that the lack of a particular group of people would solve all our problems must either be a joke or a misplaced attempt to copy a certain Germanic pre-WWII type of thinking. Either way, it causes the mouth to fall open. I'll just assume that its a joke.


Your straw men are on fire (none / 0) (#62)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 07:01:11 AM EST

And your attempt to equate that noting the problem exists because illegal immigrants are coming into the country with Nazis is both laughable and despicable.

There is nothing moral about letting someone enter illegally and do damage to the country, especially to those of us who are having jobs taken from them.

And if you had been paying attention you would know that I have called for the border to be closed and then issuing green cards to all illegal immigrants who can pass a simple background check for wants and warrants.

After that we can discuss who and how many immigrants we want to let in.

Frankly, I have been hearing "reform" for years and years and years. To me, and many others, it has become a code word for "open borders."


We seem to be talking beyond each other (none / 0) (#64)
by christinep on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 11:43:08 AM EST

and approaching the nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah stage. My references above have addressed the moral issue from a broader, universal perspective...so, cut out the phony outrage. It doesn't work.


I believe in personal salvation (none / 0) (#65)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 05:31:46 PM EST

not in group salvation.

And the issue of the illegal immigrants is that their acts are immoral in that they are doing things and taking things from others that they have not contributed to and do not have permission to take.

On a "broader" sense that is called "stealing" and, if my memory serves me, is a major no-no of the Christ ian faith.


Nice Wingnut Fantasy (none / 0) (#66)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 06:13:33 PM EST

But as usual you get it wrong...

Undocumented workers as a group use less social services (including getting arrested) than those who are US citizens.

..reports by the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Administration confirm that undocumented immigrants in fact pay many different types of taxes, including sales tax, property tax, Social Security tax and income tax.

Finally, as a tax professor I am charged with teaching tax and these comments broadcast loudly and boldly how misinformed Americans are about our tax systems. The well documented facts evidence that undocumented immigrants have paid hundreds of billions of dollars in American taxes to date. In most cases undocumented immigrants pay more in tax each year than similarly situated U.S. citizens.

So a family with (none / 0) (#67)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 06:40:53 PM EST

four kids consuming $20,000 for the school pays for it with their taxes?

hahahahaahhaa

Repeat after me.

They aren't supposed to be here.

If they weren't here they would take no jobs, consume no resources and pay no taxes.

That they are is the problem.


You Are Misinformed (none / 0) (#68)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 06:50:41 PM EST

And spreading hate propaganda.


I am misinformed that illegal immigrants (none / 0) (#69)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 07:36:58 PM EST

aren't supposed to be here?

And that the ones with kids in school can't possibly be paying enough in taxes to cover the costs?


: Not The Point (none / 0) (#71)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:05:21 PM EST

You argued that undocumented workers are immoral because
they are doing things and taking things from others that they have not contributed to and do not have permission to take.
Well by your definition you are immoral because you are using social security money that they have contributed to but cannot use themselves. By your logic that is stealing.

I am misinformed that illegal immigrants (none / 0) (#70)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 07:37:23 PM EST

And that the ones with kids in school can't possibly be paying enough in taxes to cover the costs?

ROFLOL


It really is simple (none / 0) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 09:34:52 PM EST

You have millions of people who have broken the law and illegally entered. In doing so they have injured the people who are rightfully here.

So their acts are immoral.

The law attempts to control the influx in a humane manner.


And who is bashing Latinos? (none / 0) (#57)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 09:43:42 PM EST

One election at a time (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 03:54:37 PM EST

Reagan did not think so (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 03:59:24 PM EST

: This is mid term (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 04:02:20 PM EST

big difference. Obama and McCain aren't running.

Can you read a census (none / 0) (#60)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:26:11 PM EST

if so you can see why this is a long term winner for the Dems.


As to the differentiation of AZ passed a law (none / 0) (#24)
by BTAL on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 04:02:36 PM EST

In RI, it was done via Executive Order (pdf)

Effectively, via implementation, the EO is just as forceful as a law.

So terminate R'Is 287(g) agreement (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 04:14:24 PM EST

That is a question for the WH and DOJ (none / 0) (#28)
by BTAL on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 04:18:49 PM EST

Heh (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 04:27:24 PM EST

Rhode Island is a hell of a lot more racist (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by scribe on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 06:59:35 PM EST

and xenophobic than anyone seeing their location on the map might think.

A good analogy would be to say that (working-class) Rhode Island is populated by the Bostonians who got kicked out of Southie for being too racist. Go to Pawtucket some time and see.


: Yep (none / 0) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 07:49:31 PM EST

Went to college in Rhode Island.

....turs, neh? (none / 0) (#33)
by RonK Seattle on Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 05:03:10 PM EST