• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

New AL immigration law

RJKarl

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
78,116
Reaction score
3,112
Location
HB, CA
Two awful parts are:

1. Prove immigration status for kids in school. What are you going to do with those kids?

2. It's illegal to give transportation to anyone who is illegal. You could get in trouble for giving someone a lift.
 
So are they going to check citizenship of all kids, or just the ones that look light brown?
 
Until Obama and Congress sack up and address this issue at the federal level (where it should be addressed), we're going to have states implementing their own laws. The states don't have the funds to each individually duplicate an entire federal immigration agency, so they are going to come up with ways to do it cheaply. Those ways will probably involve unpopular profiling means, but those unpopular means are also meant to be a cattleprod to Obama's ass to get him to actually address the issue where it should be addressed.
 
Typical 2&2 response, attack racism with blaming it on Obama.

You do realize Obama has added thousands of border agents and DEA agents to slow illegal immigration and numbers are down.

He has also arranged for more deportments than anyone has. But keep blaming him for ramping up enforcement is nonsense.
 
His administration has also dropped thousands of cases without cause at the immigration judge stage of removal proceedings, which is basically where they officially deport a person. This has drawn the ire of the unions.

He has been weak on immigration enforcement.
 
Immigration enforcement has to get tougher. I understand the plight of these people, and I sympathize with them, but there are legal ways to be in this country. If you cannot be here legally, then you've got to go home until you can be here legally. It's one of those things that you hate to have to say and do, but that is ultimately necessary for us as a country to do. If States feel the need to put in legislation that makes it less appealing for illegal immigrants to go there, I have a hard time blaming them.
 
Handling immigration at the individual level is futile. Punish the employers who hire undocumented workers and the problem is addressed more efficiently. Devote resources on the ground to rounding up dangerous criminals not Conseula the housekeeper.
 
Handling immigration at the individual level is futile. Punish the employers who hire undocumented workers and the problem is addressed more efficiently. Devote resources on the ground to rounding up dangerous criminals not Conseula the housekeeper.

Maybe in theory, but how does the employer know whether the Social Security card he receives is legit or not? We see the same problem with IRS penalties for backup withholdings on illegals. The employer gets a Social Security card from the worker and has no idea whether it is real or not. Cross-referencing it with the IRS' database is futile if the database says that number belongs to Paco Rodriguez, and the worker claims his name is Paco Rodriguez. So what you end up with is the employer either not hiring from certain ethnic groups to avoid the problem altogether (cue claims of discrimination) or being more critical of the documentation from said groups (cue claims of profiling). Which are the same theoretical problems that people have with AL's law, except you'd be forcing those problems on every employer across the country.
 
Handling immigration at the individual level is futile. Punish the employers who hire undocumented workers and the problem is addressed more efficiently. Devote resources on the ground to rounding up dangerous criminals not Conseula the housekeeper.

This.

Also, the best way to reduce demand for illegal immigrants is to make it easier for people to come to the U.S. legally and increase the supply of legal workers. A guest worker program needs to be implemented. The amnesty issue is the biggest aspect preventing immigration reform right now.
 
Maybe in theory, but how does the employer know whether the Social Security card he receives is legit or not? We see the same problem with IRS penalties for backup withholdings on illegals. The employer gets a Social Security card from the worker and has no idea whether it is real or not. Cross-referencing it with the IRS' database is futile if the database says that number belongs to Paco Rodriguez, and the worker claims his name is Paco Rodriguez. So what you end up with is the employer either not hiring from certain ethnic groups to avoid the problem altogether (cue claims of discrimination) or being more critical of the documentation from said groups (cue claims of profiling). Which are the same theoretical problems that people have with AL's law, except you'd be forcing those problems on every employer across the country.

Actually there's already a database for that but for some inexplicable reason it's only optional for employers to use it. The Arizona law has made it mandatory and that's one provision that has been upheld by the courts.
 
Semi-related comment: Gov Brewer in AZ made me laugh recently when she halted Arizona's medical marijuana program a few weeks back. She claimed that even though the law passed in the state's NOV elections it was being halted because the state believes it is inconsistent with federal law. Funny how this was not a consideration when Arizona passed its immigration law a while back.

As for enforcement - numbers of deportations have risen every year for something like the past 10 years. The problem is the lack of resources to investigate and process more. However, with a federal hiring freeze and the current state of the budget, where do people propose the additional needed resources come from? Also, a big issue is the lack of judges to hear cases and how the current immigration court system is overburdened (like the rest of the court system). I've always been curious how many of those judge appointments that both parties like to hold up for political reasons are appointments that deal with immigration. Both parties need to stop holding up judge appointments just for political extortion. It's one thing to hold it up because of questionable legal decisions in the past but a whole other issue when judges are held from the bench just to cause problems for the other side.
 
Actually there's already a database for that but for some inexplicable reason it's only optional for employers to use it. The Arizona law has made it mandatory and that's one provision that has been upheld by the courts.

Yeah, what I am saying is that database is useless if the worker says that he is the person in the database assigned to the number in the database.
 
Immigration enforcement has to get tougher. I understand the plight of these people, and I sympathize with them, but there are legal ways to be in this country. If you cannot be here legally, then you've got to go home until you can be here legally. It's one of those things that you hate to have to say and do, but that is ultimately necessary for us as a country to do. If States feel the need to put in legislation that makes it less appealing for illegal immigrants to go there, I have a hard time blaming them.

There are 12-15M (several million of them kids) who are already here and have been year for many. many years as productive members of our society.

Are you going to spend thundreds of billions to find them? How abotu to porsecute them? where are you going to hold several millon people while their cases are pending? How are you goign to transport them? Where are you going to get the the lawyers and the judges to process them?

Let's even say all of that is possible. What are you going to do with all those buildings you had to have just for this purpose after you are succesful? how are you going to find jobs for all those lwayers, cops, judges and jailers as well as the people whose businesses sold them products and services?

Where's the money going to come from to care for the kids who are American citiznes of parents who aren't?

Are you going to punish 2-18 year olds who have never known another home but are considered illegal because of their parents' actions?

It feels and sounds good to many on its face to say "get rid of them". Then we have to actually the logistics of doing it and reality sets in.
 
BBBBbbbbuttttt, what about the chirrens?
 
Semi-related comment: Gov Brewer in AZ made me laugh recently when she halted Arizona's medical marijuana program a few weeks back. She claimed that even though the law passed in the state's NOV elections it was being halted because the state believes it is inconsistent with federal law. Funny how this was not a consideration when Arizona passed its immigration law a while back.

As for enforcement - numbers of deportations have risen every year for something like the past 10 years. The problem is the lack of resources to investigate and process more. However, with a federal hiring freeze and the current state of the budget, where do people propose the additional needed resources come from? Also, a big issue is the lack of judges to hear cases and how the current immigration court system is overburdened (like the rest of the court system). I've always been curious how many of those judge appointments that both parties like to hold up for political reasons are appointments that deal with immigration. Both parties need to stop holding up judge appointments just for political extortion. It's one thing to hold it up because of questionable legal decisions in the past but a whole other issue when judges are held from the bench just to cause problems for the other side.

The AZ law was consistent with federal law. The question in that case was jurisdictional. Medical marijuana is inconsistent with federal drug laws that classify it as a Schedule 1 drug. Archaic, for sure, but still inconsistent.

Immigration jobs can be and often are paid for by application fees. They don't cover all of them, but they cover a bunch. And they raise the cost of filing fees pretty often.
 
The AZ law was consistent with federal law. The question in that case was jurisdictional. Medical marijuana is inconsistent with federal drug laws that classify it as a Schedule 1 drug. Archaic, for sure, but still inconsistent.

Immigration jobs can be and often are paid for by application fees. They don't cover all of them, but they cover a bunch. And they raise the cost of filing fees pretty often.

ELC - the immigration law in AZ now is consistent with federal law. However, it's original form was not, which is why federal courts struck down parts of it. I was referring to the original, not the current. The original is the one Brewer went to court to defend.
 
The one I read was consistent with federal law. IIRC, it was struck down not because of human rights issues that were used in the political rhetoric that framed the issue, but because the feds were given exclusive power to enforce immigration laws.
 
The one I read was consistent with federal law. IIRC, it was struck down not because of human rights issues that were used in the political rhetoric that framed the issue, but because the feds were given exclusive power to enforce immigration laws.

I went back and looked at it and the 9th court of appeals gave the decision you described. However, that still supports my claim that Brewer is being hypocritical. She supports a law that goes against federal law (federal law being that the federal government has prerogative for immigration matters) and is continuing to fight the federal court decision (she has appealed to the US Supreme Court) but then she places a hold on the enactment of another state law (medical marijuana) on the basis it goes against federal law.
 
I went back and looked at it and the 9th court of appeals gave the decision you described. However, that still supports my claim that Brewer is being hypocritical. She supports a law that goes against federal law (federal law being that the federal government has prerogative for immigration matters) and is continuing to fight the federal court decision (she has appealed to the US Supreme Court) but then she places a hold on the enactment of another state law (medical marijuana) on the basis it goes against federal law.

I see what you're saying, but her view is that her immigration law was consistent with federal law in that it didn't contradict it, while the marijuana law does just that. In both cases, she is looking to assist the feds, not hinder them. Semantic arguments, really, but I don't think it makes her an outright hypocrite. Having the 9th Circuit rule against you is more a badge of honor for any GOP lawmaker anyway, so I doubt she views their pimpslap as a serious affront.
 
Back
Top