This actually funny, because these laws will actually hurt big business in the long run, especially agriculture in the US. No one wants to pay $10 for an orange picked by an American worker, and no Americans (as the recent campaigns to call attention to migrant workers' plight shows) want to work picking produce.
The constitutionality of the law is, as of yet, still undecided by the highest court -- and rest assured, it will be.
I agree that unconstitutional laws shouldn't be drafted. For that reason I think states should wait and see how the court rules. If the court finds the law constitutional then I am 100% in favor of the laws being drafted. If the court finds some aspect of the law unconstitutional but the majority allowable, then I thinks states should copy the allowable parts.
I suspect the court will find that it is a usurpation of federal powers, and therefore unconstitutional, and either completely ignore the arguments that it is "racist" or shoot down the arguments that it is "racist." I highly doubt that the court will find the law to be unconstitutional for racism related issues.
This actually funny, because these laws will actually hurt big business in the long run, especially agriculture in the US. No one wants to pay $10 for an orange picked by an American worker, and no Americans (as the recent campaigns to call attention to migrant workers' plight shows) want to work picking produce.
So the solution is to ignore the fact that they are blatantly breaking the law? No, I think the solution is to find some way to allow more migrant workers in on a temporary visa. Say "if you want to come, sure, but you can only stay for so long, and only for these express purposes." Oh, and if you are here already, you're in violation of the law and will be deported -- and good luck trying to get a visa with that on your record.
I'm opposed to black market activity, even if I directly benefit from it. Some of these activities in agriculture can and in other countries are mechanized. The problem with "no one wants to pay someone $10 an hour" is that the work is hard, long, and generally not available to people that live in cities. People are connected to their locality and do indeed get harsh or degrading jobs, hell ask anyone that works customer service on the degrading scale of that job.
Shame and tame the companies, then regulate, and then codify their workforce.
The problem with current immigration is the same as with healthcare, people want a fix all or they do nothing. This creates a negative feedback loop where nothing happens for decades, but that's just way human systems work. We change rapidly, and then slow down or reverse trends.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
How is AZ's state law unconstitutional? It is the same as what the federal law is and has been for many years. Look it up. Realize that the BS thrown about on TV isn't nearly as credible as people appear to believe.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Keep in mind just one thing when you argue with idiots- they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
How is AZ's state law unconstitutional? It is the same as what the federal law is and has been for many years. Look it up. Realize that the BS thrown about on TV isn't nearly as credible as people appear to believe.
The only fair and balanced network is Fox news! Everything else is leftist-radical propaganda.
The only fair and balanced network is Fox news! Everything else is leftist-radical propaganda.
I'm sorry but your statement is absolutely ridiculous... I disbelieve all forms of BS, regardless of the source. Besides, I never said I agreed with the AZ law or the federal law. I just raised the point that they are identical with the federal law being in place for quite some time(sorry but I do not know how long specifically). My question is simply how is it possible for a state law that is the same as the current federal law to violate the constitution?
I've heard supremacy clause but that doesn't apply because the clause says that the state law has to oppose the federal law in order for the federal law to overrule it. If the laws are the same, this has no basis.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Keep in mind just one thing when you argue with idiots- they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
My question is simply how is it possible for a state law that is the same as the current federal law to violate the constitution?
The power of immigration does belong to the federal government. that is what the federal government is arguing.
the law though doesn't deal with deporting these people. it simply makes it illegal for them to be in the state (which it already is). the states still have to go through the ICS to deport them.
states are doing this because the federal government refuses to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The power of immigration does belong to the federal government. that is what the federal government is arguing.
How does this make sense? Border control has to be administered on a federal level otherwise you could have patchwork border policies based on where you try to cross (i.e. the state you're trying to enter).
By asserting that they're taking over the federal government's obligation, a state will be violating the "necessary and proper clause" at the very least.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
How does this make sense? Border control has to be administered on a federal level otherwise you could have patchwork border policies based on where you try to cross (i.e. the state you're trying to enter).
By asserting that they're taking over the federal government's obligation, a state will be violating the "necessary and proper clause" at the very least.
the states aren't deporting anyone they legally can't. they turn them over to ICS.
all they are doing is enforcing something that is already on the books since the federal government refuses to do it.
all they have said is that it is against the law of the state to be here illegally. that has yet to be turned down by a judge. what was turned down was ID part. there have only been 2 elements of the bill get shot down by a judge the rest of it still stands.
those parts are being appealed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
How does this make sense? Border control has to be administered on a federal level otherwise you could have patchwork border policies based on where you try to cross (i.e. the state you're trying to enter).
By asserting that they're taking over the federal government's obligation, a state will be violating the "necessary and proper clause" at the very least.
so if the feds fall asleep at the wheel, a state can't pick up the slack for it's own self? sounds like a crock of ☺☺☺☺ to me.
I don't know why so many people have a problem with immigration laws being upheld. this isn't something as awkward as peer to peer filesharing, or facebook privacy. this is clear cut, black-and-white stuff.
besides, if the flow of illegal immigration becomes largely based in a single state, that means when the government *does* step up they'll have an easier time closing the gap.
Take your monoblack deck, then set aside 14 swamps. Add 4 Creeping Tar Pits, 4 Darkslick Shores, 4 Drowned Catacombs, and 2 Jwar isle Refuge and add 4 Jace, the Mindsculptors. Your monoblack deck is instantly better. Better yet, drop those refuges, throw in some islands and some mana leaks, and lo and behold, you're now playing a real deck. Congratulations. Welcome to the world of competitive M:TG.
While I'm a liberal and believe the law comes a little close to a slippery slope, I'm on the side of Arizona. The illegal immigration problem has gotten way out of hand and the feds refuse to do anything because both parties want the Hispanic vote. At least Arizona's trying to do something about it.
Well, fundamentally it depends on how similar to the AZ laws everything in these other one's are that really would be needed to give a fair opinion on the matter for MOST people.
Since the majority of people out there agree with the general concept of the AZ legislation, but the devil being in the details of the actual procedures outlined within the bill.
I'm personally 90% in support of the Arizona bill after reading it, just the other 10% of it is either really bordering on unconstitutionality or blatantly so depending on the specific item, which makes the entire thing overall abhorrent to me.
Assuming all those other state's have bills in the process that only use the "good 90%" from the AZ bill than I'd support them, unless they added something unique that was abhorrent.
[And to Mr. "This only enacts the Federal law" - no, there's much more to the bill than that, for starters there's no ability to sue the Feds if you feel that an illegal wasn't properly investigated in contrast to the AZ bill, just for starters]
How does this make sense? Border control has to be administered on a federal level otherwise you could have patchwork border policies based on where you try to cross (i.e. the state you're trying to enter).
By asserting that they're taking over the federal government's obligation, a state will be violating the "necessary and proper clause" at the very least.
Tell that to the framers then. Besides the necessary and proper clause which is like a fairyland playground where all your wishes come true, where in the Constitution do you see this power delegated to Congress?
It isn't. Never was.
In 1.8. you will find the phrase "uniform rules of naturalization", but that is naturalization only, not immigration.
The only remaining sources of Constitutional objection are junk like necessary and proper and the invisible ink of Lincoln's Civil War victory.
With that said, I oppose the bill, but it is Constitutional until amended otherwise.
Please explain to me the problem with Arizona style laws. Because Arizona's immigration laws as they were prevented the police from enforcing federal immigration laws.
While I'm a liberal and believe the law comes a little close to a slippery slope, I'm on the side of Arizona. The illegal immigration problem has gotten way out of hand and the feds refuse to do anything because both parties want the Hispanic vote. At least Arizona's trying to do something about it.
Agreed. There are, what, half a million illegal immigrants in Arizona and still coming? The idea that anyone would be content with an unregulated border is just insanity to me.
While I'm a liberal and believe the law comes a little close to a slippery slope, I'm on the side of Arizona. The illegal immigration problem has gotten way out of hand and the feds refuse to do anything because both parties want the Hispanic vote. At least Arizona's trying to do something about it.
It's more like healthcare, they want to do the "massive overhaul" or do nothing. In Washington they want the "money shot" not the incremental approach.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Tell that to the framers then. Besides the necessary and proper clause which is like a fairyland playground where all your wishes come true, where in the Constitution do you see this power delegated to Congress?
Well, to the framers immigration was a complete non-issue (for obvious reasons being that our population was practically nil at the time) - nor did they likely anticipate that our nation would become such a thriving nation compared to the rest where "over-immigration" could become an issue.
This is only slightly less foolish than trying to use the framer's intent for other unanticipated advances in society like the internet and the industrial revolution.
And logically it does have to, for a large part (although not necessarily all), be administered on a Federal level because otherwise the laws get very murky and even more difficult to enforce.
For example if California decides to completely write off immigration law, while AZ makes it legal to "shoot on sight" any illegal without any Federal guidelines someone could come in through CA and become naturalized under their standards, while still being subject to the "shoot on sight" stipulation next door. [And for example, under normal law enforcement standards, someone who broke a law in multiple states gets tossed to the Feds in many circumstances]
As a nation, citizenship related laws have to be relegated nationally - not statewise - to say otherwise is abject lunacy.
This doesn't mean that the states shouldn't have the ability to reinforce the Federal enforcement if they choose however - but that's reinforcing the laws, not changing them.
What Vaclav said. Also I think that the AZ bill and others like it (and "anti-immigrant" sentiment in general) overshoot the mark by making the impoverished, desperate immigrants into the sole bad guys, when they're merely people responding to incentives. Namely, the disincentive to stay in Latin America and the strong incentive, comparatively, to move to America, because there are businesses who will hire them.
So, a good immigration-control law should ideally expand a temporary workers' visa program and also crack down on employers who hire on undocumented workers. Destroy the demand!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
So, a good immigration-control law should ideally expand a temporary workers' visa program and also crack down on employers who hire on undocumented workers. Destroy the demand!
Bingo - the ideal program (which could still be considered "SB1070"-like part of why I wish there was more elaboration on the other states) would be an extension of Federal enforcement upon those that employ illegal labor to reduce their reasons to come here, not go after the individuals as zealously.
[Or in simple terms "kill the head, so that the beast will die" - illegals come here for work, no work for illegals = no illegals (or at least far fewer)]
making the impoverished, desperate immigrants into the sole bad guys, when they're merely people responding to incentives.
Umm they are criminals. they broke the law. we have people that steal food and other things because their family needs it yet they still end up in jail for their crimes.
ILLEGAL means ILLEGAL the reason why they did it doesn't come into effect.
So, a good immigration-control law should ideally expand a temporary workers' visa program and also crack down on employers who hire on undocumented workers. Destroy the demand!
all they have to do is file the paper work to get one. as long as they meet the criteria they can get a temporary visa.
most companies can afford the fines and or penalties. of course if you make it to large then the company fire's legit workers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Umm they are criminals. they broke the law. we have people that steal food and other things because their family needs it yet they still end up in jail for their crimes.
ILLEGAL means ILLEGAL the reason why they did it doesn't come into effect.
I'm not saying that they aren't illegal. This is a fact. But the bills and stuff address only that and not the underlying causes (incentives). They act like if we were somehow able to deport all the illegals, then we'd have no more illegal immigration problem.
This would be like cracking down on petty theft, as in your counterexample, with more jail time or whatever, and yet not advancing social programs to help those who need food.
Or, the "War on Drugs."
I'm not really for amnesty but I would aim to encourage businesses to file for visas for their undocumented workers. Or pay hefty fines. I understand that we need a secure border and we can't just let everyone come across all at once without keeping track, but I'd rather be unmoving and say "no, sorry, keep back" rather than demonize the "other" people.
Yep, it makes no sense whatsoever - most of the businesses in question hire only illegals so it's a matter of them hiring less illegals if the fines are too high in all but a few corner cases.
And since they generally work in service related fields it's easy for the business owners to alter their prices from their currently reduced rate due to the lower labor costs to something akin to normal US workers would have to charge.
Do both!!! Crack down on the people hiring illegals and on the illegals themselves. A two-pronged attack on the problem. Fines for the businesses that employ illegals and put laws in place to make it difficult (to nearly impossible) to rent a place etc. if you are an illegal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thoughts on this? Do you support the idea of more laws such as these, or do you think that these laws are wrong and shouldn't be widespread?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The constitutionality of the law is, as of yet, still undecided by the highest court -- and rest assured, it will be.
I agree that unconstitutional laws shouldn't be drafted. For that reason I think states should wait and see how the court rules. If the court finds the law constitutional then I am 100% in favor of the laws being drafted. If the court finds some aspect of the law unconstitutional but the majority allowable, then I thinks states should copy the allowable parts.
I suspect the court will find that it is a usurpation of federal powers, and therefore unconstitutional, and either completely ignore the arguments that it is "racist" or shoot down the arguments that it is "racist." I highly doubt that the court will find the law to be unconstitutional for racism related issues.
So the solution is to ignore the fact that they are blatantly breaking the law? No, I think the solution is to find some way to allow more migrant workers in on a temporary visa. Say "if you want to come, sure, but you can only stay for so long, and only for these express purposes." Oh, and if you are here already, you're in violation of the law and will be deported -- and good luck trying to get a visa with that on your record.
Shame and tame the companies, then regulate, and then codify their workforce.
The problem with current immigration is the same as with healthcare, people want a fix all or they do nothing. This creates a negative feedback loop where nothing happens for decades, but that's just way human systems work. We change rapidly, and then slow down or reverse trends.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
BS is BS, any way you look at it!!!
Go team America!
The only fair and balanced network is Fox news! Everything else is leftist-radical propaganda.
I'm sorry but your statement is absolutely ridiculous... I disbelieve all forms of BS, regardless of the source. Besides, I never said I agreed with the AZ law or the federal law. I just raised the point that they are identical with the federal law being in place for quite some time(sorry but I do not know how long specifically). My question is simply how is it possible for a state law that is the same as the current federal law to violate the constitution?
I've heard supremacy clause but that doesn't apply because the clause says that the state law has to oppose the federal law in order for the federal law to overrule it. If the laws are the same, this has no basis.
BS is BS, any way you look at it!!!
The power of immigration does belong to the federal government. that is what the federal government is arguing.
the law though doesn't deal with deporting these people. it simply makes it illegal for them to be in the state (which it already is). the states still have to go through the ICS to deport them.
states are doing this because the federal government refuses to.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
How does this make sense? Border control has to be administered on a federal level otherwise you could have patchwork border policies based on where you try to cross (i.e. the state you're trying to enter).
By asserting that they're taking over the federal government's obligation, a state will be violating the "necessary and proper clause" at the very least.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
the states aren't deporting anyone they legally can't. they turn them over to ICS.
all they are doing is enforcing something that is already on the books since the federal government refuses to do it.
all they have said is that it is against the law of the state to be here illegally. that has yet to be turned down by a judge. what was turned down was ID part. there have only been 2 elements of the bill get shot down by a judge the rest of it still stands.
those parts are being appealed.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
so if the feds fall asleep at the wheel, a state can't pick up the slack for it's own self? sounds like a crock of ☺☺☺☺ to me.
I don't know why so many people have a problem with immigration laws being upheld. this isn't something as awkward as peer to peer filesharing, or facebook privacy. this is clear cut, black-and-white stuff.
besides, if the flow of illegal immigration becomes largely based in a single state, that means when the government *does* step up they'll have an easier time closing the gap.
Since the majority of people out there agree with the general concept of the AZ legislation, but the devil being in the details of the actual procedures outlined within the bill.
I'm personally 90% in support of the Arizona bill after reading it, just the other 10% of it is either really bordering on unconstitutionality or blatantly so depending on the specific item, which makes the entire thing overall abhorrent to me.
Assuming all those other state's have bills in the process that only use the "good 90%" from the AZ bill than I'd support them, unless they added something unique that was abhorrent.
[And to Mr. "This only enacts the Federal law" - no, there's much more to the bill than that, for starters there's no ability to sue the Feds if you feel that an illegal wasn't properly investigated in contrast to the AZ bill, just for starters]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Tell that to the framers then. Besides the necessary and proper clause which is like a fairyland playground where all your wishes come true, where in the Constitution do you see this power delegated to Congress?
It isn't. Never was.
In 1.8. you will find the phrase "uniform rules of naturalization", but that is naturalization only, not immigration.
The only remaining sources of Constitutional objection are junk like necessary and proper and the invisible ink of Lincoln's Civil War victory.
With that said, I oppose the bill, but it is Constitutional until amended otherwise.
Agreed. There are, what, half a million illegal immigrants in Arizona and still coming? The idea that anyone would be content with an unregulated border is just insanity to me.
It's more like healthcare, they want to do the "massive overhaul" or do nothing. In Washington they want the "money shot" not the incremental approach.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Well, to the framers immigration was a complete non-issue (for obvious reasons being that our population was practically nil at the time) - nor did they likely anticipate that our nation would become such a thriving nation compared to the rest where "over-immigration" could become an issue.
This is only slightly less foolish than trying to use the framer's intent for other unanticipated advances in society like the internet and the industrial revolution.
And logically it does have to, for a large part (although not necessarily all), be administered on a Federal level because otherwise the laws get very murky and even more difficult to enforce.
For example if California decides to completely write off immigration law, while AZ makes it legal to "shoot on sight" any illegal without any Federal guidelines someone could come in through CA and become naturalized under their standards, while still being subject to the "shoot on sight" stipulation next door. [And for example, under normal law enforcement standards, someone who broke a law in multiple states gets tossed to the Feds in many circumstances]
As a nation, citizenship related laws have to be relegated nationally - not statewise - to say otherwise is abject lunacy.
This doesn't mean that the states shouldn't have the ability to reinforce the Federal enforcement if they choose however - but that's reinforcing the laws, not changing them.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
So, a good immigration-control law should ideally expand a temporary workers' visa program and also crack down on employers who hire on undocumented workers. Destroy the demand!
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Bingo - the ideal program (which could still be considered "SB1070"-like part of why I wish there was more elaboration on the other states) would be an extension of Federal enforcement upon those that employ illegal labor to reduce their reasons to come here, not go after the individuals as zealously.
[Or in simple terms "kill the head, so that the beast will die" - illegals come here for work, no work for illegals = no illegals (or at least far fewer)]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Umm they are criminals. they broke the law. we have people that steal food and other things because their family needs it yet they still end up in jail for their crimes.
ILLEGAL means ILLEGAL the reason why they did it doesn't come into effect.
all they have to do is file the paper work to get one. as long as they meet the criteria they can get a temporary visa.
most companies can afford the fines and or penalties. of course if you make it to large then the company fire's legit workers.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I'm not saying that they aren't illegal. This is a fact. But the bills and stuff address only that and not the underlying causes (incentives). They act like if we were somehow able to deport all the illegals, then we'd have no more illegal immigration problem.
This would be like cracking down on petty theft, as in your counterexample, with more jail time or whatever, and yet not advancing social programs to help those who need food.
Or, the "War on Drugs."
I'm not really for amnesty but I would aim to encourage businesses to file for visas for their undocumented workers. Or pay hefty fines. I understand that we need a secure border and we can't just let everyone come across all at once without keeping track, but I'd rather be unmoving and say "no, sorry, keep back" rather than demonize the "other" people.
Huh? How does that make sense?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Yep, it makes no sense whatsoever - most of the businesses in question hire only illegals so it's a matter of them hiring less illegals if the fines are too high in all but a few corner cases.
And since they generally work in service related fields it's easy for the business owners to alter their prices from their currently reduced rate due to the lower labor costs to something akin to normal US workers would have to charge.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.