Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona "Papers Please" Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I propose that a guy who had two arrests prior for drunk driving, numerous moving violations, AND was here illegally should not have been out on the street. He should have been HELD until his deportation hearing that could have established the facts of the matter. A woman awaiting a hearing on genital mutilation would not have over-stayed her visa--she would be here on a refugee status. If she commits a crime - like drunk driving- while awaiting that hearing then YES, she should be locked up to await the hearing. Thanks for doing your best to falsely inflame things though.

How much of a tax increase are you willing to accept in order to build and staff sufficient prisons for holding people who are awaiting immigration hearings? Bear in mind, that this guy had been waiting two years for his hearing.

If a woman has refugee status, they don't need a hearing. There have been cases of woman over-staying visas because they feared FGM upon return home. These woman sought hearings in order to obtain refugee status. It has not always been easy for such woman to get asylum in the US. Read this article that describes how complex this issue is:

http://legalworkshop.org/2010/04/21/cornell-law-review-post

You again failed to stipulate that the people who you would like to see detained -- presumably for years -- would actually have to have been convicted of a crime. I would think that would be a minimum requirement.

We've covered this ground--sigh--but here goes: it does not matter why she's here. If your FMG lady is arrested for a crime like drunk driving and here on illegal status (overstayed visa) she should be held until her hearing. You're right--it is not always easy for women to obtain asylum in the US. Reform the asylum system if you wish. I assume it is a slow-moving process to a) protect against fraud and b) because it's a mess of a bureaucracy. But if you are here, seeking asylum, obey the law and don't do anything criminal. Especially if you've now overstayed your visa. Perhaps she should go to Canada in the interim where asylum laws are much more generous?

And where should she be held? And who foots the bill? These aren't rhetorical questions. So much of the outrage over illegal immigration has to do with what they cost us (though, again, there is a net economic gain in the aggregate, though this is not evenly distributed amongst regions/sectors)... yet you argue on behalf of a plan that would cost far, far more?

And before you argue that it will cost us more now but less down the road as it will serve as a deterrent, there is no evidence that any crime penalty has functioned as a deterrent.

We should foot the bill and expedite the process. Laws are made to balance the good of the individual with the good of the many. Getting drunk drivers off the streets is a public good. It is difficult to do with citizens, but if drunk driving is compounded with illegal status I have zero issue with footing the bill of a stay in holding until a hearing to determine consequence. Yes, I argue in favor of a plan that would cost more and function better. That is such a specious argument by the way (the price tag). I expect you are behind Universal Health Care which will cost far more to benefit many, but not behind this which will cost more to benefit many?

[Anonymous]

BTW--how much is this guy's court case for murder with a public defender now going to cost 'the system'? Far far more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW--how much is this guy's court case for murder with a public defender now going to cost 'the system'? Far far more?

We get it. No matter how pro-immigration anyone is, it is obvious that there was a major screw-up here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I propose that a guy who had two arrests prior for drunk driving, numerous moving violations, AND was here illegally should not have been out on the street. He should have been HELD until his deportation hearing that could have established the facts of the matter. A woman awaiting a hearing on genital mutilation would not have over-stayed her visa--she would be here on a refugee status. If she commits a crime - like drunk driving- while awaiting that hearing then YES, she should be locked up to await the hearing. Thanks for doing your best to falsely inflame things though.

How much of a tax increase are you willing to accept in order to build and staff sufficient prisons for holding people who are awaiting immigration hearings? Bear in mind, that this guy had been waiting two years for his hearing.

If a woman has refugee status, they don't need a hearing. There have been cases of woman over-staying visas because they feared FGM upon return home. These woman sought hearings in order to obtain refugee status. It has not always been easy for such woman to get asylum in the US. Read this article that describes how complex this issue is:

http://legalworkshop.org/2010/04/21/cornell-law-review-post

You again failed to stipulate that the people who you would like to see detained -- presumably for years -- would actually have to have been convicted of a crime. I would think that would be a minimum requirement.

We've covered this ground--sigh--but here goes: it does not matter why she's here. If your FMG lady is arrested for a crime like drunk driving and here on illegal status (overstayed visa) she should be held until her hearing. You're right--it is not always easy for women to obtain asylum in the US. Reform the asylum system if you wish. I assume it is a slow-moving process to a) protect against fraud and b) because it's a mess of a bureaucracy. But if you are here, seeking asylum, obey the law and don't do anything criminal. Especially if you've now overstayed your visa. Perhaps she should go to Canada in the interim where asylum laws are much more generous?

And where should she be held? And who foots the bill? These aren't rhetorical questions. So much of the outrage over illegal immigration has to do with what they cost us (though, again, there is a net economic gain in the aggregate, though this is not evenly distributed amongst regions/sectors)... yet you argue on behalf of a plan that would cost far, far more?

And before you argue that it will cost us more now but less down the road as it will serve as a deterrent, there is no evidence that any crime penalty has functioned as a deterrent.

We should foot the bill and expedite the process. Laws are made to balance the good of the individual with the good of the many. Getting drunk drivers off the streets is a public good. It is difficult to do with citizens, but if drunk driving is compounded with illegal status I have zero issue with footing the bill of a stay in holding until a hearing to determine consequence. Yes, I argue in favor of a plan that would cost more and function better. That is such a specious argument by the way (the price tag). I expect you are behind Universal Health Care which will cost far more to benefit many, but not behind this which will cost more to benefit many?

I just think it is hypocritical that much of the support for such drastic measures taken to limit illegal immigration is based on the supposed tax burden they present. Yet most of the solutions would result in far greater tax increases. I realize there are far more arguments than the economic ones, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say that immigrants are bleeding us dry (which they aren't, in reality) and the solution is to spend more money to stop them, especially given that there is no evidence these measures will be effective at stopping the initial problem (the supposed tax drain).

[Anonymous]

I highly doubt that most of the solutions would create 'far greater tax increases' but anyhow.
This is a law and order issue. It is a 'how' you enter this country issue (legally or illegally). It is an equity issue (which states, localities, hospitals are bearing the brunt of 'hosting' illegals? Is the federal government kicking in for emergency room care etc in states with high populations, or is that the locality?). The economics and equity issues here are so much more complicated than higher or lower taxes. It comes down to do you want to be an open border country with different localities paying more for your largesse, or do you want regulated borders, immigration and economies (legal above board ones rather than illegal communities of workers subject to exploitation?). I would be willing to pay higher taxes and prices at the grocery store for the latter. You may like to continue to live on the cheap exploiting illegal workers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I highly doubt that most of the solutions would create 'far greater tax increases' but anyhow.
This is a law and order issue. It is a 'how' you enter this country issue (legally or illegally). It is an equity issue (which states, localities, hospitals are bearing the brunt of 'hosting' illegals? Is the federal government kicking in for emergency room care etc in states with high populations, or is that the locality?). The economics and equity issues here are so much more complicated than higher or lower taxes. It comes down to do you want to be an open border country with different localities paying more for your largesse, or do you want regulated borders, immigration and economies (legal above board ones rather than illegal communities of workers subject to exploitation?). I would be willing to pay higher taxes and prices at the grocery store for the latter. You may like to continue to live on the cheap exploiting illegal workers?

That is such a ridiculous strawman as to be insulting. I have said time and time again that I am in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. I am not opposed to stricter enforcement of immigration policy. I am not opposed to deporting illegal immigrants. My focus is on the HOW. I don't believe that the end justifies the means when the "end" is primarily an economic one and the "means" pose a genuine risk of infringing on people's rights.

For you to conflate my general opposition of this law and pointing out of the hypocrisy behind most (not all) of the support of it with wanting to live on the cheap exploiting the labor of a marginalized group is gross, especially when I have said time and time again that I am not in favor of the status quo.

[Anonymous]

As for more specifics on what I would like to see, I would prefer a more open border policy, premised on work visas for those immigrating here outside of asylum purposes, ensuring that immigrants are working on the books and participating in the tax system before being eligible for public services outside the most basic (roads, police, fire, schools, though I realize there is room to debate some of these). This will ensure that immigrants are treated fairly and contribute to society. It also will provide a natural stem for immigration as visas will only be granted to those who are working and immigrants will only be accepted so long as their is work. Is there still the potential for abuse? Yes. There always will be. Couple this with penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants and hopefully we will eliminate the incentives on all sides to encourage and/or participate in illegal immigration.

[Anonymous]

And most people would like to see that. However, feeling a bit 'tricked' but the 80's amnesty they would like to see the enforcement mechanisms in place, and the expansion of our immigration quotas second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And most people would like to see that. However, feeling a bit 'tricked' but the 80's amnesty they would like to see the enforcement mechanisms in place, and the expansion of our immigration quotas second.

Enforcement mechanisms ARE in place and ARE being utilized. That is such a fallacy to argue they are not. Deportations are double what they were in recent years and their is a backlog on hearings. Now, maybe increased funds/resources so they can process more hearings more quickly is in order, but clearly the current mechanisms are being utilized to the fullest.

I still haven't seen anyone demonstrate that these proposals will actually do a damn thing to stem illegal immigration. We know that penalties don't act as deterrents. You need to disincentivize the undesired behavior and incentivize the desired behavior. This does neither of those.

[Anonymous]

Obama steps up deportation and investigation of businesses hiring illegal aliens. Yet, for "real Americans," he is "soft on illegals."

Not sure how that works out other than faith that the GOP leadership who did nothing about illegal immigration between 2001-2006 will suddenly start caring past January 3, 2011.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps b/cause his administration is suing AZ and will not send enough National Guardsmen? Perhaps b/cause they seem to have no issue with the contradictions btwn sanctuary cities and federal laws (how are those deportations going in sanctuary cities?). People want to see a full on push for border control and enforcement of existing laws before they countenance an 80's style mass amnesty of non-lawbreaking illegals, and an expansion in generosity of our current quotas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps b/cause his administration is suing AZ and will not send enough National Guardsmen? Perhaps b/cause they seem to have no issue with the contradictions btwn sanctuary cities and federal laws (how are those deportations going in sanctuary cities?). People want to see a full on push for border control and enforcement of existing laws before they countenance an 80's style mass amnesty of non-lawbreaking illegals, and an expansion in generosity of our current quotas.

None of this contradicts these central facts:
1) deportations of illegal aliens are on the rise
2) investigations against businesses hiring illegal aliens are on the rise
3) Obama is sending more National Guardsmen to the border.
4) Most folks up in arms about illegal aliens are advocating the return of people with a proven track record of failure on this issue.

[Anonymous]

Let's see... we have a president who is more aggressively enforcing federal law as noted.

And we have a proposed law that will have no measurable impact on illegal immigration. At least none that the proponents have been able to demonstrate.

Which group is REALLY looking to do something and which is just trying to satisfy blood lust?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps b/cause his administration is suing AZ and will not send enough National Guardsmen? Perhaps b/cause they seem to have no issue with the contradictions btwn sanctuary cities and federal laws (how are those deportations going in sanctuary cities?). People want to see a full on push for border control and enforcement of existing laws before they countenance an 80's style mass amnesty of non-lawbreaking illegals, and an expansion in generosity of our current quotas.

Obama's statistics on illegal immigration beat Bush's by a large margin. Bush was into guest worker programs, amnesty, and "smart" border fences because he is a Texan and they value the cross-border activity.

Your statement defies the data.

[Anonymous]

Well, duh. Bush was horrible on immigration, and McCain would have been worst than Obama. I'm a conservative who voted for Obama largely because a McCain presidency would have resulted in amnesty -- no doubt in my mind on that -- while the Democrats are likely afraid to push it through due to fear of political consequences. A Republican president would have given them sufficient political cover to push it through.