The Supreme Court Tackles State Immigration Policy
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-24/supreme-court-tackles-state-immigration-policy
An estimated 11 million people live in the United States -- illegally. Two years ago, Arizona passed the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration measure in recent U.S. history, inspiring other states to follow suit. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether that law is constitutional. It allows police officers to ask about the immigration status of anyone they stop. Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling. Supporters say it makes up for weak enforcement efforts by the federal government. A ruling is expected this summer, in the middle of the presidential campaign. Guest host Susan Page and guests discuss how far states can go to enforce immigration laws.
Guests
Tamar Jacoby
president, Immigration Works USA and fellow at the New America Foundation
Steven Camarota
director of research, Center for Immigration Studies.
Angela Kelley
vice president for immigration policy and advocacy, Center for American Progress.
Jonathan Turley
professor, The George Washington University Law School
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
There is a whole lot of stupid coming out of Arizona`s immigration law,but there was one thing I did like. Shutting down a business for repeated violations of hiring illegals.However,knowing the corrupt T-Party 5 on the SCOTUS,who are 100% pro business,they will strike this part down.
Please concentrate on the effects of 6.1 million illegal immigrants has on the constitutional protected citizens of the U.S. i.e. civic costs such as police and fire, welfare assistance, job displacement, etc.
1. If you enter the country illegally we cannot criminalize you, because you are already a criminal(see above "enter the country illegally").
2. If there is a need to reform the immigration laws then do it, but if you came here illiegally then you go home first and then enter under the new laws.
3. any and all government offices should be required to justify the legal use of tax payer funds by proving citizenship/legal alien status before providing any service.
4. Hospitals/Medical centers should be required to provide service to anyone without regard to legal status. Though I have no problem deporting persons after the service has been rendered.
5. If you have a child here then you can go back and leave them, or you can both go back and your child can return when they are able to provide for themself. We don't want to break up families but you need to enter legally.
6. If you are fund to have broken a law (felony, and possibly misdemeanor) you are no longer eligable for legal entry for 7-10 years. After your prison term is complete to the satisfaction of the government that charged you.
mnemecek,
I in general agree with this. I am not anti-immigrant and resent being portrayed as such. We live in a country the follows the rule of law. If you want to come to America, COME ON IN, we welcome you, we need you, but do it legally. Show respect to the country you are coming to by respecting the laws we have. If we as a country need to up the number of "entry documents" the Government issues then LET'S DO IT and get the people who are hard working and contribute much to the country here legally so they can enjoy the American Dream with out the fear.
To those employers who say that they will go out of business if they have to pay workers a fair wage; I say too bad, so sad. If your business model is based on not paying a fair wage to legal workers, you deserve to go out of business. This is how the market works, some succeed, some don't. Change your business model and you will succeed, if your product is good enough to.
Let Arizona opt out. Let them do it all. Their own passports.Their own border guards. All of it,or sit down,shut up,and stop being a petulant child.
When did the definition of illegal change? Illegal equates to criminal, which is exactly what every illegal immigrant: criminals taking what is not theirs.
Americans across the political spectrum (including this life-long Democrat and '08 Obama voter) DEMAND enforcement of our immigration laws--- the MOST GENEROUS IN THE WORLD (we permit apprx. 1 million LEGAL immigrants into our country every year). We DO NOT support rewards for immigration lawbreaking! For the first time, I will not be voting for the Democrats because they have sold out American citizens and LEGAL immigrant workers in their quest to pander to ILLEGAL FOREIGN NATIONALS and their insufferable advocates! WE ARE FED UP!!!!!
Further, the media keeps repeating ad nauseum that the Republicans stance on ILLEGAL immigration will hurt them in Election 2012--- to the contrary! American citizens (a/k/a voters) want out generous laws enforced--- including Democrats--- SO STOP REPEATING THIS SAME TIRED AND FALSE REFRAIN! ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is DEVASTATING TO American and LEGAL immigrant workers and is a catastropic burden on American taxpayer resources!
If Arizona police officers detain people that they think are here illegally, they are burdening INS with Arizona residents. INS has to figure out if they are here illegally, which is not always something that can be determined quickly. INS then has to decide whether to detain those people or let them go. If they have to detain them, then federal funds that might be better spent finding and expelling those people who are most dangerous.
Imagine if 25 states did the same thing. We know that we can't afford to detain and expel everyone who is here without the right paperwork, especially with such tight budgets. The federal government might have to raise taxes on everyone, to deal with the burdens anti-immigrant states impose on the federal budget, or cut into vital programs.
So Arizona is determining funding priorities for the INS/Federal government.
Another issue is interstate commerce. There have been citizens who have been detained and even exported because they have been swept up and unable to prove they are citizens right away. So a citizen who is a lawful resident of New Mexico, but has dark skin and an accent may be prohibited from traveling through Arizona. He or she might be a truck driver.
I don't know which of you braintrust commentators just made the dumb and generalized statement about "I don't carry papers proving that I was born here around with me"...MOST people don't. You glossed over the fact that the state laws will require PROOF, AFTER no current or legal identification can be produced by that individual. WHY don't you tell the WHOLE truth here???
When I go to one of my doctors, over ten years with EACH one, I now have to produce a picture identification to 'verify' it's me, thanks to the Homeland Protection Act. Whatever, I HAVE it, ALWAYS, with me! Better than American Express: "DON'T leave home without it!"
The other night I picked up my daughter at her job after she closed the store up. We took her friend and co-worker home, too. He asked me to go by the store so he could pick up a beer and take it home. No problem, but little did I know that he didn't have his wallet, and even though he is a responsible 28 year old, the clerk wouldn't sell him anything WITHOUT identification! Then he got mad at me because I wouldn't go in there and buy it for him [I'm in my 50's]. Oh well! I hope he learned his lesson, as I told him, to ALWAYS carry your identification with you, 'just in case'...NO exceptions.
If persons in question are pulled over, and do NOT have the sufficient, REQUIRED identification, then I have NO problem with them being put under suspicion.
I am SICK of the flaming liberal mentality that says to give it all away to everybody, no matter what. I worked hard all my life, second generation born American. MY grandparents were immigrants, learned to speak, read and write in English, and WITHOUT all the handouts!!!
And I am NOT a Repugnican or TeaBagger! I'm just sick of seeing what I've worked hard for go to someone else!!!
Is there any argument or consideration in this case about what this will do to victims of crimes? It is difficult enough to get illegal immigrants to report crimes to local police as it is. If local police have not just the power but the requirement to check immigration status will any victim ever report a crime? This could create a crime wave amongst the illegal population.
Suppose states possess sovereignty to the extent they can deport people lacking proper documentation (akin to voter ID laws). They would still lack the authority to deport these undocumented ones from the United States because they do not possess authority over the other states or federal statutes. It might be argued Arizona can deport the undocumented to New Mexico, Maine, Montana or Delaware, even Hawaii; but not beyond the borders of the USA. That would be a peculiar anomaly, wouldn't it?
Gunter: Makes for a compliant workforce, doesn't it?
It's not a matter of ignoring the law, it is a matter of prioritizing enforcement and enforcement costs money.
Local police departments could cut down crime to almost zero if there were more police to spread around & provide security, but they can't afford that!
Having lived in the Pacific Northwest most of my life and now living in Texas over 20 years, I speak from daily experience. There is no racial profiling, because many government employees are Hispanic. Car windows are so dark, no one can see if anyone is driving. There is a large number of crimes committed by illegals, i.e., dui's, domestic violence, speeding, burglaries, etc. as well as the more dangerous felonies. This is not something that I read about; it is next door daily. It is on the street on my way to work. Illegal is illegal. I know it. They know it. Their children know it. American communities have had to adjust to this flood of illegals. As they leave, new adjustments will follow. The cost to communities and government is everywhere and shows in the drain on state and local budgets. We cannot afford illegals. We want them to return home, so that we can enjoy our country without adjusting to their infringement on our way of life.
It seems to me the administration should make the argument that the states cannot simply assume federal authority or jurisdiction over a matter. I mean, I cannot simply decide to arrest people and turn them in even if I feel my local police force is not doing their job. Likewise, the local police cannot simply decide to expand their authority and start performing the duties of the state police, nor can the state police suddenly decide to start performing the functions of the FBI, or CIA, for that matter. While a collaborative relationship can exist, it seems reliant on the superior authority's willingness to accept assistance.
Democrats and republicans both support tough illegal immigration laws, the problem is the democrat party are "vote whores" meaning they will take and accept votes anyway they can get them, illegal or not.
If you are not a Repubnican or TeaBagger, why label liberals? I am a liberal Democrat, and I am totally against illegal aliens. Even American Hispanics are against illegals, because of the effect on their lives. Labeling people speaks about your attitude. Not everyone fits neatly into biased boxes.
obviously every alien criminal should be deported immediately. but non criminal aliens should also be targeted so that they know every time they walk outside the front door they may be deported. then and only then will living in america illegally become harder than living in their own country for many.
All the economic devastation I see is from "Made in China",not "Made in Mexico" or illegals....
Just one more GOTP bait and switch talking point.
ozkar,
I hope this is sarcasm, otherwise, I will be forced to be very afraid of your goosestepping jackboots.
Two comments:
When it is said 50% of those deported are for criminal offenses does that include crossing a border once deported in order to reunify your family. This is a felony. (It is a civil violation to cross a border without papers or overstay a visa not criminal.) Therefore are these "criminal offenses" truly what you would consider a threat to society.
To the caller who said we should enforce all laws...segregation was legal and totally immoral.
Lakeland, FL
I notice that most people who want to voice an opinion on this subject know very little about US immigration. As an immigrant to the US, I constantly hear evidence of all sorts of misunderstandings.
Let me tell of an experience I had in California about 25 years ago. I was driving up a hill during a rainy evening, and my car was rear-ended by a young Hispanic lady going to a party.
The police came, and after some discussion, it became clear that the young lady did not have insurance, or a driver's license, or even car registration. In addition, she had been drinking. But at that time, in that place, Hispanics knew that an easy way out of this sort of situation was to reveal that they were illegally in the US, which she did. And the police policy there at that time when they were confronted with someone who is undocumented was just to ignore the entire event and let the perpetrator go. So she drove off.
I was left with a huge dented fender. I was also just amazed. In my home country, there definitely would have been trouble for the young lady. My understanding is that a foreigner who had a traffic accident in Mexico would have been in massive trouble.
There has to be some middle ground between witch-hunting foreigners, and completely open borders.
Oh, and by the way, I do carry proof of my US citizenship with me at all times (a border-crossing card, which lasts for 10 years and cost me only 25$), even though I look like a typical Northern European.
If you don't or haven't lived in AZ then keep quiet. I lived their for 37 years and moved out of my beloved state because of the illegal problem. I for one am thrilled with the law. The illegals have drained the education, medical and civil coffers for too long. I watched as they destroyed neighborhoods with jamming 100 people in a house and kill anyone who comes in or tries to leave, I saw them kill cops at traffick stops just to do it, and not the least taking well paying jobs and dropping the pay rates!!! Don't you dare say they are not a problem.
Go Arizona:)
mnemecek,
I too agree with your sentiments, with some exceptions on numbers 4 and 5.
On 4, Hostpitals/Medical centers will provide service without regard to legal status, but only palliative care. If you come in with a broken arm, your bone will be set, you'll be given pain meds and sent home. If you come in with internal bleeding and it turns out to be a tumor or cancer of some sort, you'll be given pain meds if needed and sent home. In other words, no extended treatment for illegals. If you bring your kid in with the sniffles, you'll be sent home.
On 5, modify the 14th amendment to reflect the intent of its writers; that slaves born in the United States were to have citizenship conveyed to them, not that simple birth within the country's borders confers citizenship. Here's a good reference on this:
http://birthers.org/USC/14.html
Note: Its purpose is to argue the validity of Barack Obama to be President. I'm not a birther, not intending in any way to go there in this post, in my view, the quesiton is settled, but it does present good background to the 14th Amendment, so don't be distracted by the birther stuff.
If this law is upheld, it will be Latino and Hispanic people who are legally here in the US who will suffer its negative side-effects. Determining who is legal an who is not is more than just showing a state id. What is the police officer going to do with a person who tells him he was born in a foreign country, has a thick accent, admits to entering illegally some years back, but possesses a recently expired work permit. Would you be able to determine if this person is "legal" or "illegal." Would it surprise you to know that many ICE officers have to go through hours of searching in databases to find out whether to detain the person. Local law enforcement will neither have the resources, the time, nor the training to make such decisions. At best, police will simply resort to facts such as foreign birth admissions, poor English language skills, dirty clothes, proximity to border, and overall "nervous" responses by the person, in determining "probable cause." At worst, they will racially profile.
I am an attorney. I have read numerous police reports. I know the difficulties police officers face while performing their jobs. You cannot tell a police officer to not racially profile and yet force him to do his or her job with nothing but factors and indicators which push the officer in that direction.
It is fascinating how people like Angela Kelley apparently have no problem whatsoever with cities having their own "Sanctuary City" policies, which have made them a magnet for illegal immigration. This issue was not even mentioned ONE SINGLE TIME in this entire broadcast, when it has been going on for decades and is in flagrant violation of federal law. But when a state like Arizona acts to enforce immigration laws that the federal government won't enforce and whose non-enforcement is wreaking havoc on the state, these same people scream foul about the usurpation of the federal law by the states. You cannot have it both ways, Angela. If you want the federal government to have the final say, then these Sanctuary Cities have to go as well. And as someone who lives in one and sees what the cost of it is, it could not come soon enough for me.
Alex677 wrote:
"but possesses a recently expired work permit"
In your anecdotal example you nail down the problem for this fictional individual. Why expired? If I knew my ability to stay in the country depended on a current work permit, I'd make darn sure it was up to date.
I live in former state senate president Russell Pearce's former district and I am of the constituents who voted him out of office in a recall election. One of the main reasons I am against SB 1070 and Russell Pearce is because he is pretty obviously a bigot. Please don't leave this back story out of your discussion. You need to discuss this law in context of what is going on in Arizona with Arpaio and the MCSO, Babeau, the Tea Party and Pearce's little friend J.T. Ready. Google him if you haven't heard.
The immigration issue is explicitly racially motivated. denying this or avoiding it is no use to the debate. Of course not EVERYONE who is "concerned about immigration" is a racist, but when a group of tea party types show up to an anti immigration rally in support of Pearce or Arpaio what percentage of the crowd is? 80% 90%
I know people will respond and say that 1070 is not racist and people who are anti immigrant are not either, but come on. Take a good look and the mirror and be honest.
And stop calling people "illegals." It is just bad grammar.
Adam Renner wrote:
"he is pretty obviously a bigot"
"Pretty obviously" isn't evidence - and I don't even know the guy. I have as much evidence to label you "pretty obviously a bleeding heart liberal", but I haven't done so.
You demonstrate the same phobia about people with a different view than you, that you accuse others of exhibiting with respect to illegal immigration. If someone opposes illegals, he's a racist, if someone opposes Obama's policies he's a racist. It's BS.
"Take a good look and the mirror and be honest."
And stop calling people "tea party types". It is just bad grammar.
Look him up, he "wrote" the law. Do the work. Don't be cute.
Cheers.