I didn't find a thread specifically dedicated to this topic, so I thought I'd make one.
US Immigration
Started by
PERM BANNED
, May 09 2011 05:17 PM
47 replies to this topic
#2
PERM BANNED
-
- Members
-
- 2,012 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:17 PM
http://news.yahoo.co...migration/print
PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced Monday she will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that put the most controversial parts of the state's immigration enforcement law on hold.
The planned appeal to the high court comes after Brewer lost an initial appeal April 11, when a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reverse a lower court's order that prevented key parts of the law from being enforced.
Attorney General Tom Horne said going directly to the Supreme Court and skipping a possible second appeal to the 9th Circuit will save time in resolving the case, while Brewer said she is confident "Arizona will prevail in its fight to protect its citizens."
The state must file the appeal by a July 11 deadline, the two Republican elected officials said. The Supreme Court has discretion on whether to hear the appeal on the lower court's order.
"It seems like this is a big enough national issue that it will ultimately be determined by the United States Supreme Court," Horne said.
In its April ruling, the 9th Circuit panel said federal officials are likely to prove the law is unconstitutional and succeed in their argument that Congress has given the federal government sole authority to enforce immigration laws.
Brewer's lawyers argued the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law at the border and in Arizona's interior and that the state's intent in passing the law was to assist federal authorities as Congress has encouraged.
They also argued U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law might burden legal immigrants and by concluding the federal government would likely prevail.
The U.S. Justice Department urged the appeals court to uphold the order that blocked enforcement of parts of the law.
The federal government argued the law intrudes on its exclusive authority to regulate immigration, disrupts relations between the United States and Mexico, hinders cooperation between state and federal officials, and burdens legal immigrants.
State Sen. Steve Gallardo, a critic of the law, said Brewer and Horne should abandon their support for the measure, which he said is dividing the state and hurting its economy.
But Gallardo added it's good that the state is appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court because it accelerates the case. "We want to put a nail in this coffin," the Phoenix Democrat said.
Less than a day before the law was to take effect in July, Bolton blocked key provisions from being enforced, including requirements that immigrants get and carry immigration registration papers and that police — in enforcing other laws — question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. But Bolton let other parts take effect, such as a ban on obstructing traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets.
The law was passed in April 2010 amid years of complaints that the federal government hasn't done enough to lessen the state's role as the nation's busiest illegal entry point. Its passage inspired protests and led to lawsuits seeking to overturn the law and a debate about whether the law would lead to racial profiling.
The Arizona law isn't the only one that has challenged federal primacy in immigration.
The U.S. Supreme Court is mulling arguments in an appeal by groups that are trying to overturn a 2007 Arizona law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Civil rights groups have filed a lawsuit aimed at halting a new immigration law in Utah, saying it violates constitutional rights to due process and is too much like portions of Arizona's immigration law.
PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced Monday she will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that put the most controversial parts of the state's immigration enforcement law on hold.
The planned appeal to the high court comes after Brewer lost an initial appeal April 11, when a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reverse a lower court's order that prevented key parts of the law from being enforced.
Attorney General Tom Horne said going directly to the Supreme Court and skipping a possible second appeal to the 9th Circuit will save time in resolving the case, while Brewer said she is confident "Arizona will prevail in its fight to protect its citizens."
The state must file the appeal by a July 11 deadline, the two Republican elected officials said. The Supreme Court has discretion on whether to hear the appeal on the lower court's order.
"It seems like this is a big enough national issue that it will ultimately be determined by the United States Supreme Court," Horne said.
In its April ruling, the 9th Circuit panel said federal officials are likely to prove the law is unconstitutional and succeed in their argument that Congress has given the federal government sole authority to enforce immigration laws.
Brewer's lawyers argued the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law at the border and in Arizona's interior and that the state's intent in passing the law was to assist federal authorities as Congress has encouraged.
They also argued U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law might burden legal immigrants and by concluding the federal government would likely prevail.
The U.S. Justice Department urged the appeals court to uphold the order that blocked enforcement of parts of the law.
The federal government argued the law intrudes on its exclusive authority to regulate immigration, disrupts relations between the United States and Mexico, hinders cooperation between state and federal officials, and burdens legal immigrants.
State Sen. Steve Gallardo, a critic of the law, said Brewer and Horne should abandon their support for the measure, which he said is dividing the state and hurting its economy.
But Gallardo added it's good that the state is appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court because it accelerates the case. "We want to put a nail in this coffin," the Phoenix Democrat said.
Less than a day before the law was to take effect in July, Bolton blocked key provisions from being enforced, including requirements that immigrants get and carry immigration registration papers and that police — in enforcing other laws — question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. But Bolton let other parts take effect, such as a ban on obstructing traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets.
The law was passed in April 2010 amid years of complaints that the federal government hasn't done enough to lessen the state's role as the nation's busiest illegal entry point. Its passage inspired protests and led to lawsuits seeking to overturn the law and a debate about whether the law would lead to racial profiling.
The Arizona law isn't the only one that has challenged federal primacy in immigration.
The U.S. Supreme Court is mulling arguments in an appeal by groups that are trying to overturn a 2007 Arizona law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Civil rights groups have filed a lawsuit aimed at halting a new immigration law in Utah, saying it violates constitutional rights to due process and is too much like portions of Arizona's immigration law.
Beta male, and chubby incel doing what I do best...
#9
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 10 May 2011 - 09:00 AM
So your portray the argument against an unrestricted border as one based on fear and/or hate. Interesting.
I'll (partially) take the bait.
Illegal immigration, particularly across the Southern border for work purposes, should follow the same laws of supply and demand as anything else. As such, the best solution to the problem is to increase legal immigration, particularly for work purposes. This gives you the same population of immigrants, but where as one is (to repeat false generalizations) untrackable, undocumented, and paying no taxes, the other would have papers, be legal, pay taxes on income, etc.
So why don't we do this? Well fear and/or hate...at least in part. I've heard enough Pat Buchanan diatribes to know that he right isn't so much concerned with the "illegal" nature of our immigration issue as it is with the brown aspects. One should ask...would we treat this issue the same if illegals were largely Canadian or British or Australian? Perhaps if they were French Canadian, spoke Scots, or were aboriginal, but otherwise I very much doubt we'd have the same issues with it. Why? Because these people are generally white, Protestant, and English speaking. If we had ZERO illegal immigration, it would still leave us with the "problems" faced by a multicultural society. We'd still have millions of citizens who speak only Spanish or another language. Their children would still have the same right to public education as everyone else's children. So, yes, people are afraid. Our illegal (and legal, for that matter) immigrant population is largely non-white, non-English speaking, and non-protestant. And, legal or illegal, they have a higher birthrate than do white American families. This threatens what some perceive as American culture or identity. We see this trend repeatedly throughout American history. It's no surprise that we see it today. The only difference is that today a convenient scapegoat exists for this hate and/or fear, and that's the illegality of many immigrants.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#10
PERM BANNED
-
- Members
-
- 2,012 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 10 May 2011 - 09:37 AM
The key difference is the legal immigration during the 1800s and early 1900s consisted of people who wanted to identify as American and speak the native language. Illegals crossing in Mexico have no real desire to integrate into American society, and generally cling to groups. The fact that many of them use stolen identities and send their children to public schools funded my monies they don't contribute too is irritating. Tossing a non or poor english speaking child into a class room is unfair to every other child in that class room that has to have their education interupted while effort is spent to bring the one child up to speed.
There's a reason why they don't come here legally and apply for work visas. The skillsets they possess are utterly worthless. If you want to make an argument about labor, I'll gladly participate. Part of the reason Mexican labor is so cheap is because compared with union labor, they work much harder, and faster for a much lower wage. Everytime some union contractor ups his wage and take 10 hours to do a 2 hour job, he just made the likelihood of some chicano getting the next round of work.
I personally wouldn't be opposed to modifying our immigration policy, but I'd want strong attachments to it. Namely officially establish English as the language of the land and require all public schools to teach in this language as well as all government documents to only be offered as such. Establish that effective of the time the new law takes place, only children of current American citizens will be automatically granted citizenship. All illegals that would be given citizenship must possess a high school diploma, pass the current US citizenship test within two years and be subject to a mandatory two year service in either a needs of the military situation or other public service organization if found unfit for miliary service. Such an organization can closely resemble the one Obama spoke of in his candidacy and entail responsibilities such as community service and assistance of that sort. Any crime of a 1st degree misdemeanor or higher during this free pass towards citizenship will result in a complet revoking of amnesty; however local magistrates may show some leniency if they deem an exceptional circumstance. This includes anyone being considered for citizenship aiding non-compliant illegals staying in the United States. If caught, any amnesty is removed. Simply going to a two year community college shouldn't be equated as 'public service' as Obama's Dream act wanted. Going to school should hardly be comprable to volunterring to server your nation/community.
Enacting such a policy or something similar would help verify that these illegals actually want to be contributing members of society rather than using America's entitlement system for personal gain. Nothing I outlined is outrageous, and simply asks that you be a law abiding citizen and have the standard qualification as your normal, american 18 year old. Your religion, skin color or personal taste never factor into the equation. It also wouldn't hurt if we lobbied Mexico to adopt a similar immigration policy to the one it wants the United States to adhere too.
Beta male, and chubby incel doing what I do best...
#11
wedjat
-
- Members
-
- 2,691 posts
Uber bitch
- LocationThe drunkest state north of the mason-dixon line
Posted 10 May 2011 - 11:09 AM
There's a reason why they don't come here legally and apply for work visas. The skillsets they possess are utterly worthless. If you want to make an argument about labor, I'll gladly participate. Part of the reason Mexican labor is so cheap is because compared with union labor, they work much harder, and faster for a much lower wage. Everytime some union contractor ups his wage and take 10 hours to do a 2 hour job, he just made the likelihood of some chicano getting the next round of work.
First you say mexicans have worthless skillsets. Then you comment how much of a harder & faster worker they are.....so what is it? You consider that worthless? I don't. And you actually said chicano? Nice.
How many times have I told you not to play with the dirty money??
#12
PERM BANNED
-
- Members
-
- 2,012 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 10 May 2011 - 11:31 AM
Is chicano a negative term? I'm not to key on my political correctness, but I always thought chicano was a term to differentiate between mexican immigrants who view themselves as Americans and those who view themselves as Mexicans living in America.
Beta male, and chubby incel doing what I do best...
#13
PERM BANNED
-
- Members
-
- 2,012 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 10 May 2011 - 11:34 AM
I looked it up. Chicano isn't a bad word. And while a hard work ethic is certainly desireable, in the aspect of day laborers, labor itself is not exactly a skill set. Fulling the role of unskilled labor does not a skillset make.
Beta male, and chubby incel doing what I do best...
#14
freedom78
-
- TFHL Peep
-
- 6,667 posts
Advanced Member
- LocationIndiana
Posted 10 May 2011 - 11:39 AM
The key difference is the legal immigration during the 1800s and early 1900s consisted of people who wanted to identify as American and speak the native language. Illegals crossing in Mexico have no real desire to integrate into American society, and generally cling to groups. The fact that many of them use stolen identities and send their children to public schools funded my monies they don't contribute too is irritating. Tossing a non or poor english speaking child into a class room is unfair to every other child in that class room that has to have their education interupted while effort is spent to bring the one child up to speed.
There's a reason why they don't come here legally and apply for work visas. The skillsets they possess are utterly worthless. If you want to make an argument about labor, I'll gladly participate. Part of the reason Mexican labor is so cheap is because compared with union labor, they work much harder, and faster for a much lower wage. Everytime some union contractor ups his wage and take 10 hours to do a 2 hour job, he just made the likelihood of some chicano getting the next round of work.
I personally wouldn't be opposed to modifying our immigration policy, but I'd want strong attachments to it. Namely officially establish English as the language of the land and require all public schools to teach in this language as well as all government documents to only be offered as such. Establish that effective of the time the new law takes place, only children of current American citizens will be automatically granted citizenship. All illegals that would be given citizenship must possess a high school diploma, pass the current US citizenship test within two years and be subject to a mandatory two year service in either a needs of the military situation or other public service organization if found unfit for miliary service. Such an organization can closely resemble the one Obama spoke of in his candidacy and entail responsibilities such as community service and assistance of that sort. Any crime of a 1st degree misdemeanor or higher during this free pass towards citizenship will result in a complet revoking of amnesty; however local magistrates may show some leniency if they deem an exceptional circumstance. This includes anyone being considered for citizenship aiding non-compliant illegals staying in the United States. If caught, any amnesty is removed. Simply going to a two year community college shouldn't be equated as 'public service' as Obama's Dream act wanted. Going to school should hardly be comprable to volunterring to server your nation/community.
Enacting such a policy or something similar would help verify that these illegals actually want to be contributing members of society rather than using America's entitlement system for personal gain. Nothing I outlined is outrageous, and simply asks that you be a law abiding citizen and have the standard qualification as your normal, american 18 year old. Your religion, skin color or personal taste never factor into the equation. It also wouldn't hurt if we lobbied Mexico to adopt a similar immigration policy to the one it wants the United States to adhere too.
I don't know how much I agree with the idea of them fully integrating. How many cities have a "Chinatown" or something similar? Why do we think of some areas of the country as very Irish while others are very German?
I find the tax argument to be fairly unconvincing. In most places, schools are funded by property taxes. Since owning a home would require a credit score, which most illegal immigrants don't have, it's unlikely that they'd pay many property taxes...just like the millions of other American families who do not own property. If they rent, those property taxes are still being paid by the legal homeowner, meaning that those illegal rents are very much paying for our schools. Of course they also pay sales tax on everything they buy. The real issue is over income/SS/Medicare taxes, all of which are federal or split. I fully admit that getting income taxes is important...thus my argument to increase legal immigration. But, since they often make minimum wage or less, they'd be paying next to nothing in income taxes as well.
As for the Dream Act...ugh, what a turd of a law. I generally dislike the idea of overly incentivizing these things. I don't mind the idea of some sort of points system for immigration, where a degree or commitment to military service are additional points one might earn, alongside fluency in English, perhaps a willingness to teach English, etc. But military service/college = citizenship is crap. Our military is too big as it is and the last thing I want in my classes are more students who are there for a reason OTHER than to learn. I can just imagine the emails..."Professor...I really need to get at LEAST a B+ in order to keep my GPA up for citizenship". No fucking thank you. I do NOT need to be dealing with that shit.
Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head
#15
Zimbochick
-
- Members
-
- 2,424 posts
Members
Posted 10 May 2011 - 11:44 AM
It would seem to me we are in somewhat of a catch 22 situation with certain jobs. There are not many "legals" standing in line to work for minimum wage or work in agriculture. I think the temporary agricultural work permits are a great idea, but they are not enforced. My biggest issue is what is going to happen to the illegals already in-country. It's fine to say kick them out, but that would end up being an expensive, logistical nightmare. If they are given amnesty, I think it would open a flood-gate of hopefuls. Honestly I have no idea what solution would work best. This should have been sorted out years ago.
The other thing I don't really understand is that legal immigration for some is taking so long. What used to take one year to process now takes over 10. That is crazy. If you are going to approve the application anyway, why bog down the system with 10 year applications. It's a stupid waste of resources.
If employers are going to be forced to follow the existing law and screen all applicants, i see a national ID of sorts being implemented before too long, be it an embellished driver's licence, or some other form.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
