Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued an order granting in part the request of the United States for a preliminary injunction on Arizona's recent laws regarding immigration.
The first issue raised by some of the discussion floating around the blogosphere is what does this order mean. While the proponents of the statute are correct that this ruling is not a final decision on the merits, they are wrong when they say that the granting of a preliminary injunction is routine.
Over the past several years, the United States Supreme Court has made it absolutely clear that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy reserved for very specific circumstances. One of the major requirements for a preliminary injunction in federal courts is that the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on the merits. As such, the ruling on the preliminary injunction gives a tentative indication of how the trial court is balancing the merits. While there will be additional opportunities for the regime in Arizona to file arguments and suggestions in an effort to convince the trial judge that this initial assessment of the case is wrong, there is a clear message contained in this initial finding that there are serious problems with the Arizona law.
Moving onto the merits, the trial court divided the two Arizona bills (the original bill, and a set of technical corrections passed the following week) into three categories.
The first category included particular statutes in the bills which were not being challenged by the United States. For example, some of the statutes forbid local authorities from refusing to cooperate with Immigration and Custom Enforcement, other provisions make it a state offense to hire immigrants who are not in a work-eligible category under federal law.
The second category included statutes in the bills which were being challenged but for which the trial court found that there was not a likelihood of the United States prevailing. These statutes create a state offense of hiding an unauthorized immigrant and amend existing provisions regarding seizing vehicles used in hiding unauthorized immigrants.
The third category are those provisions which the trial court found that the United States would likely demonstrate conflicted with federal statutes. These provisions include the new state law requirement that legal immigrants carry documentation with them, authorizing the indefinite detention of legal immigrants properly arrested for other offenses until they can prove that they are legal immigrants, and authorizing the warrantless arrest of legal immigrants who may be subject to removal proceedings.
Yesterday, 57% of the voters in Fremont approved a measure that forces would-be renters to get a certification from the city proving they are "legal" to be allowed to rent a house or apartment, and requires employers to use E-Verify before hiring workers.
The idiot majority in Fremont just voted their town into bankruptcy.
The chances that this ordinance will be challenged in court is 100%. Similar measures in towns in Pennsylvania and Texas went to court. The towns all lost.
In Fremont, their objection was to two large meat-packing plants that have hired a lot of Hispanics. Joke's on Fremont: first, both plants already use E-Verify. Second, both are outside city limits and are not subject to its provisions.
I don't own a rental property, but if I did, I would believe that I could rent to whomever I wanted. I believe that the law says I'm allowed to do what I want with what I own.
Idiotracist State Assemblyman Daryl Metcalfe of Butler County in western PA has introduced House Bill 2479, which is modeled after that heinous immigration bill signed into law in Arizona. Some highlights:
Creating a new criminal offense for illegal aliens who violate federal law by either willfully failing to register as an alien or failing to possess proper proof of such registration when stopped for another primary offense such as a traffic violation.
Requiring law enforcement officers to attempt to verify the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens.
Creating a new criminal offense for persons who are unlawfully present in the United States and are an unauthorized alien applying for work.
Allowing law enforcement officers to arrest illegal aliens for any public offense which would warrant removal from the United States.
Creating a new felony offense for intentionally smuggling illegal aliens for profit; and authorizing law enforcement officers to impound any vehicle driven by an illegal alien, or used to transport illegal aliens.
Now you might think that we have a huge undocumented immigrant problem here in Pennsylvania, but no, no, no. While we won't know precisely how many people live in Pennsylvania until the current Census is accomplished, the most recent statistics indicate that there are about 12 million people here. And how many undocumented? Daryl estimates at 140,000. To give you a sense of how many people that is: fewer than attended some of Obama's larger rallies in 2008. Take a professional sports stadium: a place like Yankee Stadium can hold over 50,000 people. So on any given Sunday, there are more people in three large stadiums watching football than there are projected undocumented immigrants in ALL of Pennsylvania, which has a land area of 46,000 square miles.
Daryl says that the cost to each Pennsylvania household to provide education and health care for these folks is $150. It's a specious number as he neglected to consider the amount of money contributed to the tax base and Pennsylvania businesses. But forget the sales taxes, the property taxes, the cars and houses bought, etc., etc., etc., $150 is a minuscule amount, it's less than fifty cents a day. I'm in, I've got my checkbook.
Pennsylvania is more white than many states: over 85% of the population is white, compared with the national stat of 79% (again, pre-2010 Census numbers). This is just an attempt on the part of the hater to make it more white, like the failed attempt of Lou Barletta and Lou Dobbs in Hazelton.
Shame on Daryl.
Protests are being planned. Since I plan to attend, I'll let you know how it goes.
We all know that the Arizona Immigration Law is going to court. It's likely going to be a face off between the 4th and 14th amendments on one side and the 10th amendment on the other, with the racist slime side arguing that the Feds abdicated immigration reform, and therefore it fell to the states.
But it might not come to court before November. An injunction prohibiting enactment is possible before it goes into effect this summer, but what if this guy has it right?
The way the media plays the story, it was a wave of racist, anti-immigrant hysteria that moved Arizona Republicans to pass a sick little law, signed last week, requiring every person in the state to carry papers proving they are US citizens.
I don't buy it. Anti-Hispanic hysteria has always been as much a part of Arizona as the saguaro cactus and excessive air-conditioning.
What's new here is not the politicians' fear of a xenophobic "Teabag" uprising.
What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote - and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.
Think about it. My first thought when I heard about the bill was "racist slime" (and that was the single nicest thing I thought.) But what if this really is a play for the Arizona IIE to prevent complete exile? Certainly, the blowback will hurt the Republicans nationwide, but is this where they plan to make their stand?
What if Hispanics don't vote in November in Arizona because so many, both legal and undocumented, are either locked up or staying off the streets? Is this the only way Jan Brewer thinks she can win? It would not be out of the IIE playbook to set up off-duty cops in a perimeter near voting places. And spread the rumours ahead of time that they WILL be checking papers.The Arizona primary is at the end of August, and it's a closed primary, so it's unlikely that many Hispanics would be voting on the Republican ticket, but it could conceivably affect some Democratic primaries, especially the Senate and Gubernatorial ones.
As we're all waiting to see whether Jan Brewer will sign the racist immigration legislation in Arizona, there is a another piece we should be concerned with: the Birther Bill. Yup, really. Presidential candidates who want to be on the ballot in Arizona will need to provide a copy of their birth certificate to be allowed on that ballot.
To say this is unfortunate is understating things. Yes, it's true that individual states can set rules and regulations for certain ballot things: dates that petitions are due, dollar amounts for filings, order of candidates, all regs relating to state offices. However, in every state, legislation says that for the national offices of President and Vice President if the party was on the last presidential ballot, that party's nominees can be on the next ballot as a slate. Therefore, since the Democrats and Republicans were on the 2008 ballot, the slate candidates can be on the 2012 ballot, and can stay there in perpetuity if the party garners 5% of the vote.
The upshot of this bill, if approved in the Arizona State Senate and signed into law, will be an eventual Supreme Court challenge pitting states rights against those of the national party system. The only Federal legislation regarding presidential candidates comes from the Constitution.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
While the Constitution provides for states to be able to set rules for their Electors to the Electoral College, there is no notation indicating who proves "natural born". It has always been accepted that the vetting for age and birth country was accomplished by the party.
Once again, for those of you who think this isn't about racism and other forms of hatred, you haven't been paying enough attention.
Taking a deep breath, he plows into the murky water.....
I know there are "expert" opinions on both sides of the argument on whether illegal aliens are good for the economy or not, but this is my post, so I can state my opinion and explain why I think ALL illegal aliens should be rounded up and sent home to their country of origin (well, maybe not that drastic, but...). If you find a flaw in my logic, feel free to let me know....
First of all, they are Illegal, not "Undocumented". They are in this country illegally whether they crossed over the border without legal reason or their guest worker/exchange student paperwork expired. They have broken the law and are criminals. Nothing more, nothing less. It may seem benign, but they have impacts on many items that I will try to point out in this post that are basically stealing (taking something for free at the expense of others), and may even indirectly kill others. So their simple presence in the country is more than simply them trying to have a better life than the one they had in their home country. It impacts lives of people that are in this country legally. I am all for Legal Immigration. That is what our country was built on. Immigration and the needs of the USA workforce should be filled by legal immigration or legal guest worker programs.
Second, no one knows how many illegal aliens are in the US. That should scare the bejeasus out of everyone. If you don't know how many there are, that means you don't know who they are and where they came from. I know it is a Republican tactic, and one that I despise, but it would be plenty easy for a terrorist organization to slip cells into this country, get them established, then rain terror from within. We need to be able to manage our entry points and not have free open borders. People should be able to come and go for tourism, guest worker programs, business needs, education, and so forth, but the key is knowing who is here, and being able to know that they left. And if they didn't, the reason why they didn't leave. There could be a valid reason, but you know how many and why.
The big winners today are insurance policy holders in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Under the radar, the six largest insurance companies in the state had applied for rate hikes, predominantly in the individual and small business markets, of up to 34%. State Insurance Commissioner Joseph Murphy said no. The insurers sued, and yesterday, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Stephen E. Neel denied their request for an injunction, so the state's rejection of 235 separate proposed rate hikes stands. It should be noted this is approximately 93% of the requested rate hikes, the rest were accepted.
Judge Neel said that the insurers had not gone through the appeals process within the insurance division, and therefore they lacked legal standing. Commissioner Murphy and Governor Patrick, applauded the decision. The insurance companies said they'd lose MILLIONS...I pretty much doubt that, but it will be fun to watch them be proved wrong.
Bigger winner? Joe Arpaio. Yesterday, the Arizona House passed a measure making it illegal to be an undocumented alien in Arizona. This had already passed the state Senate, and Governor Brewer is expected to sign it. It means that if the police "reasonably suspect" that someone lacks the proper papers, they must arrest the person and make him/her prove that he/she is in Arizona legally. Look for the kind of neighborhood sweeps Joe Arpaio has been undertaking. Despite Arpaio's Federal indictments for civil rights violations, this state law might protect him.
The losers? The citizens of Arizona. Hatred and bigotry are always a problem...In addition, if you remember Hazelton, PA, the town where Lou Dobbs and Lou Barletta endeavored to basically ban brown people: the whole town suffered. And likely that will occur in Arizona also. We know that immigrants, especially those without proper documents, take a lot of low-paying jobs. If suddenly all the restaurants, delivery services, landscapers, farmers and ranchers, construction companies, etc., have to pay 10% or 50% more to get help, what does that do to prices? Or the ability of these companies to stay in business? The state sales, income and property taxes will all decrease when a large chunk of population moves on to a better place to live, thus further depressing state coffers. What of people who see a crime? They won't testify or even give information because of the threat of racial intimidation, even if they are native born Americans -- this opens a great opportunity for criminals, especially the violent ones. What of the schools? There could be large drops in student populations, and thus the need for fewer schools, fewer teachers, and more people out of work.
But remember -- it NEVER stops with one group. The haters will finish with the Hispanics, and then move on to the other groups they wish to destroy....remember the old quote "...and when they came for me..."
In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair "amnesty."
"Whatever you have thought of me in the past, I can tell you right now that I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together," he said in a live interview with Telemundo's Maria Celeste.
Over the past two decades or so, Congress has tightened the rules regarding criminal acts committed by non-citizens. These changes had the result of increasing the likelihood that a criminal conviction would make a non-citizen eligible for deportation and reducing the discretion of immigration judges and immigration agencies in making a decision against deportation.
One of the basic general rules of criminal procedure is that defense counsel have the obligation to advise defendants about the direct consequences of a plea of guilty and that courts have an obligation to make sure that defendants are aware of those consequences when pleading guilty. Traditionally, direct consequences are those potential consequences which are in the control of the court and flow from the plea. It includes things like potential fines and sentences. Normally neither the court nor defense counsel have any obligations regarding collateral consequences -- things like registration requirements, the possibility of parole, etc.
Mr. Padilla had been a resident of the U.S. for over 40 years, having served in the U.S. military, but was still just a resident alien when he was caught transporting over five pounds of marijuana in 2001. After he lost an attempt to suppress the evidence in his case, he entered a plea of guilty. According to Mr. Padilla, prior to the plea, his attorney advised him that he would not be subject to deportation as a result of this plea. Immigration authorities, apparently, disagreed with that reading of immigration statutes and did not release an immigration detainer which had been lodged against Mr. Padilla. As a result, Mr. Padilla filed a post-conviction motion asking to set his plea aside on the basis of misadvice by his plea counsel. The trial court, and ultimately the Kentucky Supreme Court, ruled that Mr. Padilla had not stated a claim that would support allowing him to withdraw his plea.
Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether or not Mr. Padilla has stated a claim, that if true, would entitle him to relief. There are two separate parts to the argument pending before the court -- and thus how the case could be decided.
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.
So, of course, there's some Republican that wants to change it. Nathan Deal is a current Congressman (GA - 9) who is running to be Governor of Georgia. He plans to re-introduce his 2007 bill to deny citizenship to those people born in the United States unless at least one of the parents is:
a citizen or national of the United States;
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).
Last time, it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and it never got past there. Generally because you can't pass a law (and expect it to stand) if it directly contravenes the Constitution. What he actually needs is a Constitutional Amendment.
There are arguments to be made on both sides. Personally, I think we leave the 14th amendment alone, but that's just one girl's opinion. What's yours?
Reports are out this morning that the White House will push for immigration reform. Over on the left coast, the LA Times has as one of their lead articles information on Americans who are detained, sometimes for months, by ICE. These folks ARE American citizens, but can't necessarily prove it to the ICE's satisfaction.
If you were swept up, now, today, in an immigration raid, could you prove that you were an American? Having a driver's license on you does not prove citizenship. Believe it or not, neither does a Social Security card. Having a passport on you might help, although ICE would backcheck it, and if your identity had been compromised, perhaps it would work out for you, perhaps not. Do you carry your birth certificate with you? Probably not, and if you do, the likelihood is that it's a copy, not the original.
And while you're waiting for ICE to check your name, it will probably be disquieting to recall the number of names the government has spelled close-but-no-cigar on immigration records, the no-fly list, and other government databases.
Thomas Warziniack was born in Minnesota and grew up in Georgia, but immigration authorities pronounced him an illegal immigrant from Russia.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has held Warziniack for weeks in an Arizona detention facility with the aim of deporting him to a country he's never seen. His jailers shrugged off Warziniack's claims that he was an American citizen, even though they could have retrieved his Minnesota birth certificate in minutes and even though a Colorado court had concluded that he was a U.S. citizen a year before it shipped him to Arizona.
And that's if you're a natural born citizen. Things can be even tougher for Americans born abroad, as well as natrualized citizens.
On the up side, last year ICE pointed out that they provide excellent medical care to all detainees: American or not.
Last night, President Obama was asked about immigration reform at the Town Hall in Costa Mesa. His response was that immigration reform had to be comprehensive. He said that it is important for longtime illegal immigrants to have a path to citizenship so they can join unions and get protection from employers who exploit them. He says those illegal immigrants could earn U.S. citizenship if they pay a fine, learn English, and get in the back of the line behind those who apply to come here legally.
What do we do in the meantime?
One train of thought says that we undertake a lot of raids because if illegal immigrants don't have work, they'll leave the country. The logic is that this enforces current law, as well as keeps jobs for Americans. Turns out that immigration raids actually end up raising wages:
[A] report by Jerry Kammer of the Center for Immigration Studies looked at the aftermath of six immigration raids at Swift & Co. meat-packing plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, Colorado, and Utah. About 1,300 undocumented workers were arrested, and another 400 without authorization to work in the United States were detected around the same time through better company screening.
"At the four facilities for which we were able to obtain information, wages and bonuses rose on average 8 percent with the departure of illegal immigrants."
Kammer says that Swift used pay increases and signing bonuses to staff the plants after the raids, but bringing up wages wouldn't necessarily correlate to a hike in consumer prices.
On the other hand, there is the argument that these people are just here working, living quiet lives, and we should leave them alone.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American."
"Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?" Pelosi [said].
Do you remember when illegal immigration was an actual issue? Think back - Hillary Clinton and drivers licenses. How John boy's positions would play in his home state. The fence. Lou Barletta and Lou Dobbs.
Well, it appears that the number of illegal immigrants is falling. A lot. We know anecdotally that there are fewer immigrants in the US based on proceeds sent to Mexico. The LA Times wrote back in April that 1,000,000 fewer Mexican families are receiving funds from their family members in the US.
According to the USA Today (29 December, page A1) the number of apprehensions this year fell to about 700,000 down from 1.6 million in 2000. (You remember 2000, the Clinton economy, jobs and investments. Sorry, I digress, and yes I remember the tech bubble.) This is the lowest number since 1976. The apprehension number is used to calculate how many people are attempting to enter the US illegally.
Years ago, I used to argue with people about illegal immigration. I know people who said "fence, enforecement, send them back." I contended that it was wasted money, much like the failed "war on drugs". A specious idea. My thought was that if, instead, the US administration (and I had this argument through a number of them) put pressure on the Mexican government to increase living standards, and build their economy, and the two economies had more parity, there would be less illegal immigration, since these folks come for jobs. Further, if Mexico had more money, they could buy OUR stuff and we could therefore ship products down there in lieu of underpaying jobs.
Unfortunately, my idea was raising the standard of living in Mexico, not watching the implosion of the US economy. Seems parity works either way.
Do you remember when illegal immigration was an actual issue? Think back - Hillary Clinton and drivers licenses. How John boy's positions would play in his home state. The fence. Lou Barletta and Lou Dobbs. 
