Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Which very accurately describes the state of Mexico right now, yet another argument for controlled borders - it is increasingly looking like we have a failed state on our southern border.

I was thinking of how it describes parts of southern Arizona that are effectively under control of the Mexican drug cartels now.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I won't take that bet because there are outs for Arizona and it'll depend heavily on the makeup of SCOTUS at that point in time, which, 5-10 years from now, could be vastly different.

Like I said, it depends on how they frame the issues. If AZ successfully frames it as something of a criminal enforcement statute, it has a shot. If it stays strictly an immigration issue, it's dead.

Why should it matter how AZ frames it? The charges by the Feds are that AZ is trumping federal law. AZ has to show that they aren't. Pretty simple. The case will be at SCOTUS within the next 6 months so we already know the makeup.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

So you changed your mind in the last few minutes from when you said "I happen to think it's ripe for abuse, and regardless will get shot down on one or more technicality."

No, I still think it will get shot down, mainly because I don't think a judge will buy it. But I'm still not going to make a wager on it, because crazier things have happened.

For instance, I apparently completely misread a jury in a month-long case I was helping a judge with. I would've sworn it was gonna be a defendant's verdict, or at most a weak plaintiff's judgment. Yeah, instead they gave the plaintiffs almost $5 million.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Why should it matter how AZ frames it?

Because that's how many cases, and especially constitutional ones, are won. You frame it one way, Party A wins. Put a different spin on it, Party B wins.

Look at SCOTUS's recent ruling on the animal cruelty videos. They unanimously struck down the law, but not because it violated the first amendment freedom of speech. They struck it down on the technical grounds that the law was too vague and too broad - covering otherwise legal activities.

Had the challengers stuck strictly to a pure 1st amendment argument, they might not have won, or at least wouldn't have gotten a 9-0 decision. By making a more nuanced challenge, they succeeded.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Someone being unlawfully detained, even momentarily, is a violation of civil rights. If you are pulled over and the cop didn't have reasonable suspicion that you violated some law or ordinance, your civil rights have been violated even if he lets you go 2 minutes later.

Racial profiling merely makes it easier to prove.

Now there's a consistent small government conservative point of view, which is refreshing to see these days.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Good editorial on "The War on Arizona" by Pat Buchanon. I don't agree with him a lot of the time, but he's spot on here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100713/cm_uc_crpbux/op_3314667

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Good editorial on "The War on Arizona" by Pat Buchanon. I don't agree with him a lot of the time, but he's spot on here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100713/cm_uc_crpbux/op_3314667

What an absolute clown. I counted ten paragraphs between, "Do the bad guys really need to be this hysterical about this issue?" and "IF WE DON'T WIN AMERICA WILL DIE!!!!!!!!" He should have put them closer together for people too stupid to see the irony.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

What an absolute clown. I counted ten paragraphs between, "Do the bad guys really need to be this hysterical about this issue?" and "IF WE DON'T WIN AMERICA WILL DIE!!!!!!!!" He should have put them closer together for people too stupid to see the irony.

Pat hitched his wagon to that horse when commie hysteria expired as a meal ticket in 1989. It's what he's got, he's an effete, intellectual Jesuit cross-dressing as a redneck populist. Leave the poor old fart alone.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Lou Dobbs? In all seriousness, he's the guy who ought to be leading the Tea Party. Unlike Palin he actually has some brains and integrity.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Pat hitched his wagon to that horse when commie hysteria expired as a meal ticket in 1989. It's what he's got, he's an effete, intellectual Jesuit cross-dressing as a redneck populist. Leave the poor old fart alone.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Lou Dobbs? In all seriousness, he's the guy who ought to be leading the Tea Party. Unlike Palin he actually has some brains and integrity.

Pat has had some reasonable points of view on international issues...seems to me he was one of the few on the right to question the Iraq invasion from the start. But...

The foundation of the US suit is that Arizona is guilty of a legal power grab in the face of Article IV of the Constitution. Pat's got this one wrong...his whole premise of a US war against Arizona is somewhere between a gross exageration and totally backwards.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

And when the federal government refuses to exercise said authority to the detriment of individual states? Oh well.

So the argument goes like this.
AZ: We'll take care of this.
Feds: Hey, that's our job!
AZ: But you're not doing it.
Feds: Doesn't matter, it's still our job, not yours.
AZ: But we need you to start doing your job.
Feds: No.

Funny... Isn't that how unions work?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

A solution.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Nice to see a bunch of states jump in on Arizona's side of the court battles:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/15/28842.htm


Solutions? We don't solve things in this country anymore. We just throw taxpayer dollars and rhetoric at things and then pretend they don't exist anymore.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Solutions? We don't solve things in this country anymore. We just throw taxpayer dollars and rhetoric at things and then pretend they don't exist anymore.

Correct.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Nice to see a bunch of states jump in on Arizona's side of the court battles:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/15/28842.htm


Solutions? We don't solve things in this country anymore. We just throw taxpayer dollars and rhetoric at things and then pretend they don't exist anymore.

The GOP is not the party of fiscal conservatism...more evidence. The payoff of such a bill in the majority of states will be minor...the costs, huge via diverted law enforcement resources and lawsuits. With the probable exception of Arizona, the states actions are all about politics. As a result, society should start to label the conservative movement as what it is, strictly social conservatives...and no longer believe the right's charade of claiming that they believe the Constitution is preeminent when they don't.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

The GOP is not the party of fiscal conservatism...more evidence. The payoff of such a bill in the majority of states will be minor...the costs, huge via diverted law enforcement resources and lawsuits. With the probable exception of Arizona, the states actions are all about politics. As a result, society should start to label the conservative movement as what it is, strictly social conservatives...and no longer believe the right's charade of claiming that they believe the Constitution is preeminent when they don't.

Ok, that's a different angle on this one. Arguing against policing the border because it would cost money. Hey, while we're at it, why have law enforcement officials at all, getting rid of all of them would save us a heck of a lot of money. And if it's a good idea for the border, it's a good idea away from the border.

And oh, land sakes, there's some politics involved.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Ok, that's a different angle on this one. Arguing against policing the border because it would cost money. Hey, while we're at it, why have law enforcement officials at all, getting rid of all of them would save us a heck of a lot of money. And if it's a good idea for the border, it's a good idea away from the border.

And oh, land sakes, there's some politics involved.

Whatever you say, Bob Marx. We all know that privatizing our safety is more efficient I keed... it's like reverse role playing!

 

[Handyman]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Whatever you say, Bob Marx. We all know that privatizing our safety is more efficient I keed... it's like reverse role playing!

Hey it is only Communism/Socialism when THEY do it, when he does it then it is just good ole American values!

If only the U.S. had a National Guard of some sort...

 

[Kepler]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

If only the U.S. had a National Guard of some sort...

Cheney had other priorities. For them.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Whatever you say, Bob Marx. We all know that privatizing our safety is more efficient I keed... it's like reverse role playing!

Yah, I know law and order is an outmoded concept in some circles these days. Just call me old-fashioned.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

This is really getting to be an embarrassment when it comes to the rule of law - the rule of man is certainly trumping the rule of law.

The federal government, which is refusing to enforce its own law, sues a state which is suffering because of that refusal. However, the feds have shown zero interest whatsoever in going after these so called "sanctuary cities," which have ordnances in explicit circumvention of federal laws.

That is absolutely the rule of man winning out over the rule of law. The current government doesn't like a law that was put in place by a previous administration? That's OK, just ignore it, or better yet, find a judge who'll say it's suddenly OK to ignore it.

Not that I'm advocating this, but let's say a conservative government comes into power and they decide to just stop sending out social security checks because they don't like the program. Is that right? Must be.