« Under the tree | Main | Do you spy on your kids? »

June 26, 2012

Comments

Good points but a big difference between the two issues is that one is about what powers are to the states vs. the feds and the other is about constitutionality of a federal law. The state/federal power divisionw as largely settled in the 19th century, Rehnquist himself even lamented that fact in the '70s. Justice Kennedy is the weathervane as the man hasn't been on the losing side in what feels like forever, and his questions for the SG were pretty pointed.

The Justice who was absolutely embarassing and sounded like every lesbian I knew in college was Kagan. The transcripts of her questions made me think of debates with 2nd semester freshman feminists.

[HS: It's true that the legal issues are different between the two cases. but the legal issues of the power of Congress to pass any economic legislation is far more settled.]

The Obama Administration argued for "uniformity" of enforcement, or something like that. This means that sanctuary cities should be penalized.

Perhaps we should follow Iran's example, and charge illegals with espionage.

Definite maybe. I just don't know. The Supreme Court has always been too hard to predict. I guess we'll find out on Thursday.

Steve Sailer talks approvingly about this lady, Amy Wax, (http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/awax/), on his blog today. I wonder if she might make a good Supreme Court justice? I read some of her writings - not bad. Anyway, for those out there in the alt-right who aren't too thrilled about the coming coronation of St. Mitt, just think about Supreme Court appointments and what four more years of our current Dear Leader will bring us. No more Wise Latinas, please!

Roberts is a vile corporatist there is no other conclusion to draw.

Yeah.

Further, the one provision they did uphold, that cops can ask for legal citizenship papers when they investigate someone for other reasons and have reason to doubt their citizenship, is been rendered moot by Obama.

He's said he's directed that illegal immigrants who get stopped for traffic violations aren't going to get deported by his administration. So what's the point of finding out who's illegal if nothing's going to be done about it?

"coming coronation of St. Mitt."

Dream on, Opie. If you show up to vote, LaMarcus will pinch your neck off. If you vote absentee, your ballot will be tossed.

The constitution is pretty clear that the federal government is in charge of immigration. Section 1 of the 14th amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Courts have long held that language means that states cannot pass their own laws on immigration.

This language is in the 14th amendment to overturn the Dred Scott decision, which found that people of African descent brought to this country as slaves and their descendants, even if no long slaves, were not citizens. This language also prevented the states from stripping citizenship from former slaves. Congress had granted citizenship to all freed slaves born in the US in 1866, and this language was to prevent the Supreme court from ruling that law unconstitutional.

The parts of the AZ law that were overturned made it a crime for immigrants to not carry registration documents and a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek employment. The so called "show me your papers" part of the law was allowed to stand for now, but immigrants can no longer be required to carry their papers, so it is unclear how law enforcement can enforce this part of the law.

As an aside here, being in the country legally and having the right to work are two completely different things. Someone with a tourist visa is in the country legally, but they do not have a right to work. Under current law, it is not illegal for someone with a tourist visa to try to find work with an employer that is willing to obtain a H1-B visa so they can work legally.

The US must be the only developed country in the world that seems to have little or no control of its boarders, Bad luck that you share a boarder with Mexico.

Don't tell me YOU actually believe the Supreme Court is "on the side of the people?"

They're Ivy Leaguer ELITES
and the last time I looked
Their paychecks said "US Gov" on them.

"As an aside here, being in the country legally and having the right to work are two completely different things."

Pretty sure we all knew that already, but this raises another question: why is it that large corporations require proof of legal eligibility to work in the US if the federal government isn't going to enforce those laws? Instead of complaining that H1-B visa numbers are too low, why don't they just hire engineers who come here on tourist visas and overstay them? Or is there some legal basis by which the federal government can enforce immigration and labor laws when the immigrants in question are illegal skilled workers from Europe or Asia and choose not to enforce those laws when the immigrants are unskilled ones from Mexico?

"why is it that large corporations require proof of legal eligibility to work in the US if the federal government isn't going to enforce those laws?"

Congress decided to require corporations to require proof of right to work and to keep copies of the documents employees present. I believe an employer can be fined if they do not have copies of these documents for all their employees.

Congress has not required employers to verify those documents, so many illegals are working using forged green cards. Forged green cards and forged divers licenses are relatively easy to obtain. Many employers know that a lot of their employees have forged documents, but they don't care as long as they work hard for low wages.

It would be relatively straight forward to make it vastly more difficult for illegals to work in the US by requiring employers to verify green cards and some other documents. Why hasn't congress done that? Congress is in the pocket of big business and big business likes all the illegals that keep wages low. Congress focuses all its effort on border enforcement. Border enforcement will never get ride of all the illegals. Half of all illegals in the country entered the country legally, and just overstayed their visa and found work when they were not allowed to work.

Congress could easily solve most of illegal immigration problem by setting up a system for rapidly verifying green cards and other similar documents and requiring all employers to use it. They are never going to do that, because big business interests are opposed to it. They will waste more money building fences on the border and other non-solutions to make people think they are doing something.

Blue willow writes "The US must be the only developed country in the world that seems to have little or no control of its boarders, Bad luck that you share a boarder with Mexico."

True, but we are not Chad or some place that just can't control their borders. This is a deliberate bipartisan policy choice.

"Dream on, Opie. If you show up to vote, LaMarcus will pinch your neck off."

If LaMarcus or some other 'boo tries that, they're going to get lead poisoning.

I'm not a lawyer but the part about state's not being able to penalize employers really does sound fishy. Ever since they passed the law I thought that would be rock solid. Something is rotten in Denmark.

""@mikeca

Congress could easily solve most of illegal immigration problem by...(fill in the blank)""

Soooo...WHY do they NOT do it? Any of it?
There's a reason.
You're thinking two steps behind the game.

"Instead of complaining that H1-B visa numbers are too low, why don't they just hire engineers who come here on tourist visas and overstay them? "

You can't legally PAY someone to work on a tourist visa and it's a pain in the ass for large fortune 500 companies to maintain separate payroll systems for engaging these clandestine tourist engineers that you mention.

Paying illegal immigrants works for landscaping companies, restaurants and mom-and-pop construction companies, but it's impractical for large firms. It's not like Microsoft has a mind to import some under cover, low-level software engineers from Bangalore on tourist visas, and then have Steve Ballmer pay them under the table by giving them cash each Friday afternoon.

Camlost,

I know you can't "legally" pay illegal immigrant engineers. You also can't pay "illegal" immigrant anyone else. My point was that if the government isn't going to enforce laws on one class of illegal immigrant labor, how can it enforce those same laws on another class? Can't a corporation hire illegal engineers and then, if it gets busted for it, make an equal protection argument that if the law is being held in abeyance for landscapers it should be held in abeyance for engineers too?

The current administration doesn't care about protecting the citizens. How is AZ going to detain ANY illegal alien at this point? Obama has made it clear unless they have a record ICE will NOT respond. We would not be having this coversation if our neighbor was Afghanistan! It is an extreme, but you get the point.

"HS: It's true that the legal issues are different between the two cases. but the legal issues of the power of Congress to pass any economic legislation is far more settled."

Just because this idea is settled in the collective Jewish mind does not mean it is 'settled.' Not everyone is the grandchild of a communist.... But Obama is working hard on your food stamps for all idea:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/

[HS: What's with this "Jewish mind" crap? All of the gentile Justices since the 1930s have agreed with that. Roosevelt, who pushed those changes on the country, was a WASP and not Jew. He didn't even like Jews very much except when they voted for him.]

"HS: What's with this "Jewish mind" crap? All of the gentile Justices since the 1930s have agreed with that. Roosevelt, who pushed those changes on the country, was a WASP and not Jew. He didn't even like Jews very much except when they voted for him.]"

It's like calling science 'settled.' It implies that there's no reason to argue, so we're going to do what whoever said 'settled' wants. If it's truly 'settled' that Congress has the power that Jews want it to have, then we're screwed, because the least socialist Jews (barring Russ Roberts and four others) think it's peachy to legislate drink cup size. You claim to be conservative, but like approximately all Jews, you want govt monopoly medicine to be 'settled.' Obamacare is a big step.

This is not settled. Many Americans believe that there should be real limits on the feds. Just because your side has been winning for a long time does not mean that you've won.

The comments to this entry are closed.