Arizona immigration law blocked
A federal judge has issued an injunction that bars some of the most controversial aspects of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect. The ruling preserves parts of the law, however. The law, challenged by the Obama administration, has been described by Cardinal Roger Mahony as “retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless.”
Arizona is likely to appeal the ruling, which relies heavily on the 1941 Supreme Court case Hines v. Davidowitz. That case struck down a state alien-registration law. Judge Susan Bolton quoted a passage from the Hines ruling that declared Congress had “manifested a purpose to [regulate immigration] in such a way as to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national . . . system and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.”
One interesting point in the ruling is that the judge essentially found that the Arizona law would interfere with national security because of an unfunded mandate it contains. The statute would require Arizona authorities to determine the immigration status of every person arrested, which would lead them to swamp the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Law Enforcement Support Center with requests it is bound by federal law to answer. According to federal officials, an overload of requests from Arizona would make it more difficult to respond to national-security-sensitive requests from the FBI and other agencies.
on July 28th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
The judge’s ruling seems tightly-reasoned to me. She stayed close to the statutory language, and she avoided any of the emotional language and overtones surrounding the political discussions of the Arizona law. Seems to me Judge Susan Bolton has cojones. (That’s intended as a compliment.)
on July 28th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
(Why is it a compliment to say a woman has cojones? Would it be a compliment to say a man has ovarios?)
Will bishops deny Communion to politicians/judges who vote/rule the wrong way on this?
on July 28th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
I’ll take it as a compliment, Gerelyn. We need to work on getting “ovarios” used as much as “cojones” is used in popular culture, however. “Quiz” came into the language as a made-up word in very short order (in a few days or weeks, if I remember correctly) on a bet, so there’s hope for “ovarios.”
on July 28th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
http://www.6lyrics.com/ovarios-lyrics-jenni_rivera.aspx
on July 28th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
As usual, bill colier,with a good sense of law and balance,reads the situation right in my opinion.
Of course, folks with ideological points may weigh in.
on July 28th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Bolton let stand the right of Arizona to outlaw “sanctuary cities” and the right to require employers to use “e-verify”. The glass is 20% full, and Arizona’s other anti-illegal immigrant laws have withstood court challenges. Also,although it blocks the provision that requires police to determine immigration status; it does not outlaw the Arizona statutes that allow police to do so. Arizona is covertly, and by piecemeal means, slowly choking off illegal immigration within it’s borders. I’m loving it.
on July 29th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Given that my own ancestors were Irish illegals, sneaked into Michigan through Canada, I’m still trying to get a handle on exactly how illegal immigration is a problem. From sources outside of FOX news.
Concerns seem to revolve around the possibility of terrorists coming through a porous border, gang violence, school/health care costs, language barriers, and taking jobs that teenagers need to save money for college.
I found a study by the state of Mississippi, where the number of illegal immigrants are growing. It emphasized that the cost analysis was strictly an estimate–difficult to get hard data on people who stay under the radar.
The study indicated that the difference between what the illegals are estimated to cost the state (schools, health care, cops) vs. what illegals contribute to the state (income and sales tax) is about $25 million–or about $8 per capita for everybody in Mississippi.
http://www.osa.state.ms.us/documents/performance/illegal-immigration.pdf
Would be interesting to know how that compares to how much legal immigrants cost the state.
Anybody got more/better data?
on July 29th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Sobering story in the NYT today — a reminder of the cost to the immigrants themselves:
“An Arizona Morgue Grows Crowded.”
on July 29th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
There are so many elements in this complex problem the mind shudders to think of them:
* Murder and kidnapping both in the U.S. and Mexico
* Sundering fathers from their families
* Deportation of illegals’ families and their stress due to that threat
* Unfair wages paid to the illegals
* Americans on welfare because they refuse to do work which pays less than minimum wage
* Tolerance of dishonesty of employers of illegals
* Some Illegals not paying income tax
* Cost of social services for illegals not paying taxes
* Americans willing to tolerate such injustices and illegalities for the sake of cheap lettuce
on July 29th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Ann:
Has anyone done a study on what percentage labor costs are of the price of a head of lettuce?
on July 29th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
I understand the good people of Arizona are frustrated about this and it is obvious the Feds have almost nothing to help matters.
Still, I do not think the new AZ was the correct response. The AZ governor could have rescinded permission for the President to use the AZ National Guard troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, and she instead could have dispatched AZ National Guardsmen to the AZ-MX border. That would have sent a message to the federal government that AZ is frustrated with the Feds, without causing all this uproar among hard working immigrants and their families.
We Americans are far and away the most decent, friendly, and tolerant people on this earth. We treat immigrants from all lands better than any other nation on the planet. This is a wonderful part of our national character. Another great characteristic for which we are justifiably known is our sense of fair play.
For the last twenty plus years (since the 1986 amnesty), many Americans – not just big hotel chains and Argri-business outfits, but many average Americans – have basically given these illegal workers a wink and a nod, and have hired them to pick crops, slaughter beef, mow yards, clean house, paint our houses, care for kids, etc.. Every American that did this knew very well at the time that the person they were dealing with was technically illegal.
What were these Mexicans supposed to think? All of them arrive poor, and most have no more than a forth grade education. Most of them are however, quite trusting, hard working, Christian (most are Roman Catholic), and decent. Obviously we wanted them here; we paid them well (compared to what they were used to), and we were friendly toward them. We Americans basically gave them the impression they were welcome and that ultimately whatever problems they had with their work status would be resolved in future. Meanwhile – we implied by our actions – if they just worked hard enough, they could trust that we (the Americans) would make things Ok. They counted on us.
Now, some twenty years on, after their having worked very hard, all the while trusting that we would somehow “make it right”, and after many or them have bought homes and land, and have kids growing up here and all the other things that come normally with living life, now we are considering simply rounding up all these folks and hauling them back to Juarez or whatever other Mexican hell-hole they came from, and telling them that next time they should follow the rules.
I do not think that is the type of people we are. I think we are better than that. We are a Christian nation after all. Jesus told the story in the Bible about how “when I was a stranger in a strange land, you welcomed me”; we ought to recall our Christian culture and ethics when we make decisions and policies on this sort of issue.
In any case, we Americans are not they type of people who would be proud of ourselves for having snookered some of the poorest folks in the western hemisphere into working ten or twenty years at low pay with the implied possibility of a better life, only to toss them out like yesterday’s newspaper. Moreover, we owe it to ourselves not to become that sort of people. No no – we are much better than that.
on July 29th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
The upshot is we need to 1) grant an amnesty and 2) work on closing the border, or we need to 1) work on the border first and then 2) grant an amnesty.
That is the Feds’ job and they have done neither; they have done nothing productive regarding this since old Reagan granted the last amnesty in 1986.
On this issue the federal government has failed entirely, plain and simple.
on July 29th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Ann,
On the issue of those in the country illegally and not paying taxes and therefore taking advantage of government services without contributing their share. In general, I think this is a myth. Here in Texas, we have no state income tax–only sales tax and property tax–and so anyone who purchases taxable goods pays the same tax, illegally here or not. Also, anyone paying for shelter either directly or indirectly pays property tax (through their landlord if renting). Therefore, the services provided by the state of Texas (including schools) are paid for by all those in the state, illegally here or not. Services that are ultimately paid for by the federal government, including emergency medicaid (the only medical services those here illegally are entitled to) are paid through federal income tax and payroll taxes. Virtually all those here illegally and working would, if they filed income tax, end up not having to pay anything, given their low income and the current tax tables. This leaves the payroll taxes. These taxes pay for retirement, disability, etc., which those here illegally could never benefit from anyway.
Those here illegally benefit from some state and federal services, but they do pay to support those services and they pay just as much as anyone else in their same economic situation would. At least that seems to be true here in Texas.
There are undoubtedly people here illegally who are also using fraudulent papers to gain access to other services, like health care, food stamps, welfare, etc. This is a separate issue, since anyone, here illegally or not, could attempt to defraud in the same way (remember Reagan’s “welfare queen”?) From my experience, the undocumented want to stay as far away from the government as possible and very few want to risk deportation by trying to scam the social services systems.
on July 29th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
One idea is to give Mexicans and Canadians free-run and not require visa permissions (if they would grant us the same priviledge), but still require visas from perople or other nations.
It might work to get an accord (probably attached to NAFTA) between Canada, Mexico, and USA regarding blanket travel and work permits, and land ownershpt rules from the North pole to Mexico, but again, the feds have failed to do or try anything productive regarding this.
Politicians – Democrats and Republicans – have simply been playing politics trying to woo the Latino vote with favors. While some congressmen might get themselves re-elected cow-towing to latinos, for the most parts their efforts are nonsense and not productive.
And the rest of us are the worse for it.
on July 29th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
“Those here illegally benefit from some state and federal services, but they do pay to support those services and they pay just as much as anyone else in their same economic situation would. At least that seems to be true here in Texas.”
Gerald Brazier –
It is my understanding that in the other states everyone with a certain level of income does pay state and federal income taxes. We really need some expert information on all this, I think.
I’m not in favor of throwing out the illegals. But I can understand the Arizonians who have more crime because of the Mexican drug trade, and I can understand the Tea Partiers, especially the working poor and lower middle class people among them, who complain bitterly about the perceived injustices.
And used the price of lettuce just as an example of the rest of us colluding in the payment of unfair wages to the illegals. As somebody said, we want them here — at low wages. We too are guilty.
on July 30th, 2010 at 10:24 am
You make good points Ann – it takes two to tango and we bear some of the guilt in all this as well.
I rarely agree with Mrs. Clinton but have to admit she hit the nail on the head recently; she could not have been more correct.
On speaking with some Mexican diplomats during a recent trip, she pointedly mentioned that if we in the US did not have such an appetite for cocaine and other hard drugs, Mexico would not have so much trouble with the narco-traficantes and gun runners, and our border states would be more secure and calm.
And so like the woman who stomps down to the bar and chews out the bartender because her husband is drunk all the time, the drug dealer is a symptom of a larger problem.
For many years, Guzman and other narco-bosses operated out of Columbia. However joint efforts by American and Columbian military over the years forced them to leave Columbia. That made Columbia a bit calmer, but the drug bosses simply moved to Mexico and now Mexico has a lot of drug violence and we have real and violent criminals on the border. Hey, the Mexican mafiosos and capos are only doing the work that American and Columbian mafiosos won’t do :-)
I work in the electric-gas utilities, and back in the 1980s the government instituted random drug testing in the utilities and transportation sectors of the economy. Nobody much liked it back then, but fast-forward twenty-plus years and utility and transport workers are much healthier now than we would have been if guys had not dropped all the dope back in 1986 or ’87 when the started random drug tests.
Also, with national health care on the horizon, it does make to expand random drug testing to all sectors of the economy. It is obvious enough that in the long-term, people are generally healthier if they do not use cocaine and other hard, additive drugs. If we as society will be paying for health care for all, we (society, via our government) have a responsibility to promote healthy living. At a minimum, that would include encouraging and even coercing people to stop using hard destructive drugs and – at least in the utility and transportations sectors – random drug testing has proven to be a very useful tool in that effort.
And so before yelling at Mexico because Mexican mafiosos are bring drugs here that we in fact want to buy, we should look at ourselves and clean up our own act.
on July 30th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Also – as my wife recntly noted – people should try to understand the bigger picture.
Some drug using folks say things like “I am not hurting anyone. I simply use cocaine at home and do not bother anyone.”
While it is true some folks only use dope at home and “do not bother anyone”, if they understood what took place getting that bag of white powder (or whatever) to their door, they might not be so flip about it all.
If they knew that one or two people died in order that they could snort some coke, they might calm down a bit on buying and using the stuff.
on July 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Maybe it’s time to reconsider the bracer program:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/19/220832.shtml
A Solution to the U.S.-Mexico Border Problem
Barry Farber
Tuesday, June 19, 2001
“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem … may my right hand lose its cunning.”