Don’t follow Arizona on immigration
Virginia should heed the Supreme Court’s ruling that immigration enforcement is a federal matter.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned three out of four parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.
Any other year, it would have been a blockbuster decision. This year, it pales in comparison to the much-anticipated ruling on the Affordable Care Act. Nevertheless, Americans, especially lawmakers in Virginia, should take a moment to note the outcome.
June 27, 2012 - 6:13 AM
If the State is not allowed to enforce immigration law and the Federal Government refuses to enforce immigration law, what is the point of having the law?
If we send people to Congress and people to the Senate to make and pass laws and the President refuses to enforce the laws they make because he doesn’t like them, what is the point of sending Congressmen and Senators to Washington?
What is the point of having laws if they will not be enforced? We could save a lot of money by disbanding the Congress and giving an Imperial Presidency the job of making law and enforcing it at it’s discretion.
If we’re going to have a rule of men instead of a rule of law, Why not just have a King and get over it?
Obama has deported hundreds of thousands of people and the detention centers are full of more on their way out. He sent the National Guard to the border and hired more border guards. The laws are being enforced. The illegal immigrants are lower than in a decade. The problems in Arizona are overblown and have MUCH more to do with the drug and gun trade than workers who sneak in. This is all an overblown, dishonest argument. From start to finish, this is political and not even really about immigration. Arizona’s problem did not just arise after Obama was elected. Ask them what Bush/Cheney did for their problem?
“The immigration status of people within the country is a federal matter not amenable to a patchwork of 50 different sets of state laws.” And when our chief executive refuses to enforce federal law for political purposes, then what? I guess we just pick up our marbles and go home, yes? So we really don’t need a congress as long as we have Obama and Napolitano?
I think the only reason why the Times takes this position is because probably no one here has lived in Arizona, and thus have no personal experience with how the fed’s refusal to enforce its own laws affects the everyday lives of Arizona citizens. There are MANY places in Arizona–well beyond the border areas–that are simply not safe for anyone traveling without personal protection. Those folks are citizens of the United States, and pay federal taxes. They don’t deserve federal protection?
Moreover,Scalia’s point is both relevant to the issue, and well taken. It is the job of our president to execute the laws enacted by Congress. When he doesn’t, he is essentially legislating. This is a violation of the separation of powers, the bedrock of our republic.
Wow Sandi. Is your arrogance truly that boundless? I’m sure the people of Arizona will be greatly relieved to hear that you, safely ensconced here in SW Virginia, have deemed the problems in Arizona to be overblown.
And while your asking them what Bush did for their problem, ask yourself how continually living in the past and blaming Bush will help them today, or tomorrow. Yours is the dishonest argument and it is merely cover for the fact that you have no answer for the issues raised in posts #1 & 3.
Actually Chuck, it is my honesty that is truly that boundless. I told the truth.
Illegal immigrants have been leaving:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-06-08-immigration_N.htm
Crime has been going down:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/arizona-immigration-crime-border-safer.html
Criminals are the priority:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/06/25/immigration-officials-in-arizona-to-receive-directive-on-how-to-handle-supreme/
Obama has increased border security:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/10/barack-obama/obama-says-border-patrol-has-doubled-number-agents/
There is a simple solution to illegal immigration – e-verify. The problem is most businesses do not want to do it. In those states with e-verify law, the businesses are using employee leasing to get around it. The US has made it available, but has not made it mandatory. The states using it, have not made it mandatory for leased employees.
Virginia could very easily put e-verify into law with a heavy fine on businesses not using it for all employees and leased employees and most illegal immigration problems would go away. They will not do it because half the GOP does not want to stop illegal labor.
6 – that’s a good idea in principle, Rich, but the system itself needs some work:
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/06/e-verify-illegal-immigration-smith-gallegly-blowback.html
Now, that’s an opinion piece, and it’s a year old, but it raises some valid points.
The GOP has no argument when it comes to immigration simply because the cannot agree within their own party. Consequently, the Congress has done nothing. for the GOP to criticize Obama for not enforcing the law is absurd when the immigration laws have been unenforced for decades.
I personally believe it is bad policy to not enforce immigration laws, but to do so requires fixing the law to account for the decades of non-enforcement. Congress must decide to either make those here legal or send them home by enforcing the laws, but to continue doing nothing places 12 million people outside of the law and makes all our lives more difficult.
The Arizona ruling by the Supreme Court essentially takes their law apart – a complete win for the Obama Administration. The on epart left in merely allows for the checking of status. Since the US is only deporting criminals, it means that only criminals can be detained, other illegals will have to be let go.
You would think a Congress full of whiners about illegal immigration would have e-verify in place, correct, accountable and mandatory. Yet more proof they are all talk and not going against “business”. Not for Arizona and not for the rest of us either.
89-hoo – e-verify must be required for employees and leased employees as well as non-employee (cash) compensation. A stiff fine on the business for not doing so will stop most payments to illegals.
There is no discrimination when e-verify is done for all and you require all who cannot be verified to get the information at SSN corrected before hiring.
Nothing will stop those who risk paying fines in order to pay illegals. But the number willing to take that risk will drop if e-verify is enforced by the states. In SC the fine is $10,000 per occurrence. Would you risk hiring someone without doing an e-verify check if you faced that kind of fine?
One more note, I was recently told that the Marriott Corp starts housekeepers at $9.00 per hour unless they are illegal. The illegals are only paid $6.75 per hour. My source could be wrong, but definitely is in a position to know. It may be a local thing. One thing is for sure, they hired a lot of illegals. Interesting because of who is on the Marriott board of directors.
#6 and #9 I will assume you both (please correct me if wrong) oppose the Arizona immigration laws, both the 3 relatively minor ones that were struck & the one that was, at least for now, upheld.
I don’t know a lot about e-verify for employess, but on the surface find it at least odd you would object to trained police asking for legal verification when there is probable cause, but advocate all employees (or any, for that matter) show e-verification.
I do not agree with any state, making laws or enforcing laws not sanctioned by the federal government.
ALL employees have had to verify their eligibility to work in the US (an I-9 Form) by offering several forms of acceptable ID, for a very long time. The problem is that this system relies on the eyeballs of the person seeing the ID to judge if they are fake or valid. You would be surprised how few people have every actually seen a “green card” (that is not even green).
E-verify was supposed to remove that burden and rather than having what might be a worthless I-9 in an employee file, employers would have verification that employees are legal to work before they start paying them. This is not some new scheme.
I do not equate being stopped for “looking illegal” which is a privacy issue IMO with applying for employment. If there is probable cause for a stop or an arrest for a crime, identification should be verified, including legal status. Even so, we can only deport so many people at a time and the detention centers are backed up now I believe. There is a process.
More to your point, if the employers do the verification and the jobs dry up, the trained police will have fewer such issues to have to deal with. Nip it in the bud!
#12 “I do not agree with any state, making laws or enforcing laws not sanctioned by the federal government.”
Wow. Where to begin. The Constitution explicitly reserves to the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government.
The laws that Arizona are attempting to enforce are federal laws.
Why have states & local governments? Do you have any idea what you are advocating?
Oh for goodness sake Jim Lucas! Must you parse every post I make? You know very well that my comment is in the context of what is federal is federal and what is state is state. A patchwork quilt of laws on national and international issues is counterproductive, confusing and not remotely cost effective. It may not seem fair to a “states rights” devotee, but I doubt the founders predicted the Civil War or how far states would go to defy the federal government.
I am seriously going to have to object to being your hobby! If you do not understand what I mean, then just ignore the post. This constant provoking over every point is not amusing. Why does the City have to get permission from the Virginia legislature to do so many things? I did not write any of the rules FYI!
10 – I don’t have a problem requiring either e-verify or the I9 form as a means of guaranteeing citizenship (I say this knowing very little about the system, I confess), my earlier point is that there are some kinks in the system itself that need to be worked out. Get those straight, I’m all for it.
14 – yes, we can thank Lincoln for starting the process of destroying the states in favor of the State.
But the issue does create a quandry. If left to the states to enforce immigration law, as you seem to support, then all they really need to worry about is making sure illegals aren’t in that state. Once out of Virginia, in other words, Virginians don’t need to worry. We are not – for better or worse – citizens of Virginia, we are citizens of the US (for better or worse…I would prefer to think of myself as Virginian first, American second, but that’s not the way it works). Again, thanks to Lincoln for starting that ball rolling downhill.
#15 From your #12 (again); “I do not agree with any state, making laws or enforcing laws not sanctioned by the federal government.”
Your words. What did I “parse”? Twist? Put in your mouth?
IMO you need to take responsibility for your own posts & quit blaming others for your own words.
‘Hoo, I did not state an opinion on federal versus state immigration policy, except couple of days ago I agreed it was a federal function.
I take issue with the absurd blanket opinion offered in #12, and it is my opinion that in situations where the federal government plays election politics & refuses to protect the citizins in any given state, with laws duly passed by Congress, certainly that state has the right to enforce those same laws. This seems to me obvious at a minimum.
19 – I was musing aloud more than anything else, Jim.
Once again Jim Lucas, you are making a bogus argument based on a false premise. The federal government cannot increase border guards, send in the National Guard, increase deportations and build more detention centers and be labeled “refuses to protect the citizins (sic) in any given state”. It is just not true. It is actually, Arizona that is totally playing politics and trying to hurt the sitting President.
#21 Which is why now, since the SCOTUS decision, the Obama administration refuses to share data with Arizona, and refuses to accept any illegal aliens from Arizona other than those involved in felonies.
Why they have set up a hot line urging people in Arizona to contact the feds when Arizona practices the policy SCOTUS just deemed legitimate.
‘Hoo, I agree with your musings.
Interesting 89Hoo, that you would “thank Lincoln” instead of the Southern fools who pushed for secession and war to maintain a heathen practice. Interesting indeed. Seems to me that the true Americans were NOT the ones fighting to secede and take their states from the union.
24 – Sandi, the states were fighting for states’ rights, and their right to secede, which was recognized at the time. The Founding Fathers never intended for the union of States to be insoluble and involuntary. See Jefferson’s writings, the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, as a minimum. Jefferson envisioned a federalist government – relatively weak Washington to serve as an intermediary in interstate disputes, an advocate for foreign trade and diplomacy, and a focal point for common defense, and that’s about it. The States were intended to be autonomous and sovereign in their own rights. Lincoln started us down the path of ending all that.
Understand, I am not unsympathetic to Lincoln and his dilemma. He saw the need to maintain the union – even at the expense of destroying the federal system and developing Leviathan Washington – as the most crucial issue. This is an understandable dilemma…just wrong.
As far as the heathen practice, slavery had been ended peacefully everywhere else in the civilized world (well, everywhere that HAD ended it), including Britain, and it was unnecessary to start a war that killed 700,000 people and cost untold billions (and was frankly on the way out in the South anyway). It could have and should have been ended peacefully.
17. 89Hoo – Indeed when one state protects itself from illegals, they move to a more abiding state. There are many moving from SC to Virginia for this very reason.
#25, actually Hoo, that is a common misconception about why the states “seceded” from the union of states. Read the Secession Papers from the very states that claimed secession (which, by the way is illegal; see Texas vs. White, 1869); they never mention states’ rights, it was all about Slavery for them.
As for your claim that “Slavery was on the way out” that is starkly contradicted by the facts. In 1800 there were about 750,000 slaves held in bondage in the U.S. By 1860 there were just over 4 million, and the Supreme Court and Congress had acted in support of the institution. Those whose entire economic and social system was rooted (no pun intended) in Slavery were not going to simply “peacefully end it.”
Lincoln, in essence, had no choice in his course of action. When the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, he was required by his oath of office to call for volunteers to raise an army. Soldiers in the U.S military were under attack, and by default The Constitution was under attack. Lincoln had a mandate to protect and defend it.
Your term ” relatively weak Washington” is also erroneous. The Founding Fathers had a relatively small federal government in mind, which does not imply its powers would be weak or diminished.
I disagree 89Hoo, if the issue had really been “The States were intended to be autonomous and sovereign in their own rights“, they could have easily stayed with the ratified “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”. The concern was that the federal government under those articles was not strong enough and that is why the Constitution was born, needed to be ratified by each state and was in force when some of the states, mad with political hatred, decided to secede.
Even if I grant you the notion I disagree with, that the secessionists only wanted “states rights”, the constitution offered them a legal way to fight for those within the union. They chose the path to divisive rhetoric, hate and war because they were offended that Lincoln or anyone else did not support their feudal slave economy.
Jim Lucas – e-verify is a very simple process where an employer sends a list of new employee’s social security numbers to SSN electronically and SSN verifies that the numbers and the people giving those numbers are legit and the same. It helps stop SSN ID theft, it helps stop the employers from hiring those with no SSN (illegals) and it takes the black market out of stealing IDs and selling them to illegals. Much of the petty burglaries, pocketbooks stolen, etc comes from illegals buying SSNs so they can work.
As for my views on illegals – it is simply that we should not have immigrants here without legal status. Wither make them legal because wee need the labor (if that is true) or send them home. Being illegal means they can be overworked, underpaid, exploited (most want to say they work harder than US workers) and it places them outside the law so that they end up breaking additional laws to survive. They made be excellent people, but they are placed in a position where breaking laws and secrecy is a way of life. The police do not want to arrest them because of all the paperwork and problems of dealing with them, so we have petty crimes and some not so petty that go uncontested.
Congress must take some action one way or the other.
Precisely right Richard. Congress has abdicated their job in favor of paybacks and political witch hunts. They have not actually governed since Clinton. No President should have to lead 535 people by the nose. They have a job to do and they should damn well do it. How long have we been fighting and losing the health care battle? The illegal immigration/border battle? The drug battle? The tax battle? The deficit battle? What is wrong with people that hold the President accountable for all that Congress fails to do? The idea that legislation should be led from the White House is just plain silly. Other than very special directives or projects, Congress is supposed to discuss, write and pass our laws and legislation. Their dysfunction is crippling this nation.
#28 “The concern was that the federal government under those articles was not strong enough and that is why the Constitution was born…”
Wrong. The Constitution explicitly enumerated the duties & restrictions of the federal government. It was signed off on only after the first 10 amendments were added, reiterating such limits. All powers not granted the federal government are specifically reserved to the states.
By the way, this was upheld today, as SCOTUS for the first time in contemporary history denied Congress’ attempt to expand federal power via the Commerce Clause. Roberts’ reading for the (five justice) majority practically apologized for the legislation, but reiterated Congress’ power to tax. By 7-2 the Court struck down the ability to penalize the states for not expanding their Medicaid roles. The latter, by the way, was the basis for the 27 states that brought the case.
I am not wrong Jim Lucas. Yes, the First Ten Amendments (represented in the Supreme Court Building) were added to appease those who feared too much power was going to the Federal Government in an effort to win ratification, but the reason they wrote the Constitution in the first place was because the Articles were too weak and too “state” friendly.
The ruling today will be “argued” forever but the bottom line is that the ACA is upheld.
#32 Are you once again saying the 10 Commandments are not in/on the Supreme Court building? Yes or no.
#32 Any Constitution that enjoins the states, by definition made the federal government stronger. No argument there. The main concern at the time was financial, attempts to get the individual states to pay into a central pool & recognize a central currency left the federal government unable to perform it’s basic duties (not healthcare).
The Constitution was ratified only after the first 10 amendmaents were added, limiting the power of the federal government, ensuring the rights of the states & individuals, thus appeasing the anti-federalists
Yes.
#35 http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp
#35 And; http://morallaw.org/blog/2006/08/the-ten-commandments-in-the-supreme-court-building/
#35 and; http://www.heritage-signs.us/ten/more_info.phtml
I have tried to show an objective cross section of opinion. To my knowledge, Moses did not write or present the Bill of Rights.
I see lots of pictures of Moses “the lawgiver” and he is holding tablets, I never have denied that. But “The Ten Commandments” are not actually displayed. Not anywhere. And FYI I do not believe there were any Roman Numerals on Moses “original tablets” at any rate. Sorry, acknowledging Moses as among the “lawgivers” is one thing, there is no display of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building.
I did not say, nor imply that Moses wrote the Bill of Rights (again with the straw man). I think the Roman Numerals I-X on the doors are clearly an example of the Bill of Rights which is literally justice in action.
No one has argued that Moses the lawgiver was not among the people honored at the Supreme Court. I argued only that the Ten Commandments are not “on display”. NO ONE can tell anything about the Commandments from the friezes.
#39 It is an interesting question. Yet, I honestly don’t see how one can “assume” that the tablets held by Moses are other than the Ten Commandments. It seems any assumption would point the other way.
As said previously, to my knowledge Moses is not known to have come down from the Mount with the Bill of Rights. And I’m pretty sure it’s not a grocery list.
I am not trying to revisit the Giles County situation, but the context you suggest certainly IMO adds credence to their (eventual) “historical context” perspective.
Flash forward to Roanoke County and opening, rotating, multiple religious invocations. Same Wisconsin group. Camel’s nose, etc.
Oh…and what laws did Moses “the lawgiver”, give?