re: "When Good Politics Is Bad Policy and Bad Law"

DAVE SCHULER at The Glittering Eye considered the Arizona immigration testimony before the Supreme Court.

Money quote(s):

"The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the case Arizona v. United States, the federal challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, considered draconian by its foes and obvious by its defenders. You can’t draw hard and fast conclusions about how the justices will rule based on oral arguments but the day did not go well for the Obama Administration."

It's tough to make strong arguments when your case is so weak.

"To my untutored layman’s eye the federal government’s argument appears to be that it can have its cake and eat it, too. The Congress can pass and the president can sign laws and then, if enforcement or even simple management is too burdensome, it can merely ignore them. That strikes me as a political argument rather than either a policy or a legal one. Congress should either authorize the resources necessary to enforce the laws it passes or limit their scope so that they can be enforced with the resources they’re willing to grant." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Mr. Schuler isn't wrong about what Congress should do, but getting Congress to do what it should do is beyond the powers of mortal men.

"On immigation the Congress has chosen the path of political least resistance by in theory having fairly strict immigration law while in practice having very limited immigration law. That doesn’t make any sense either from a policy or legal standpoint.

Just to restate briefly my views on immigration I don’t think we have an immigration problem in this country. I think we have a temporary problem of Mexican immigration in this country, temporary because of Mexican demographics and, indeed, Latin American and Caribbean demographics more generally. I think that we should increase the number of work permits available to Mexicans by at least an order of magnitude, possibly several orders of magnitude, give employers better tools for verifying the status of the workers they hire, and thereafter enforce immigration laws strictly in the workplace, imposing severe penalties on employers who refuse to comply. But, honestly, I’m not worried about the issue because, as I’ve said, it is temporary and the recent stories about immigration from Mexico slowing or even reversing recently fully support my view."

Congress has gotten around much in the way of immigration-related costs by putting the financial burden for legal immigrants firmly on those immigrants themselves, by requiring DHS (and State) to impose fees, making many of these functions pay for themselves.

The costs of dealing with illegal immigrants aren't amenable to such an approach.

4/25

re: "Supreme Court Hears Arizona Immigration Law Case"

Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") looked a the Arizona immigration law case before the Supreme Court.

Money quote(s):

"The issue, as I see it, is whether Arizona is authorized to empower local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration law, or whether President Obama gets to say: hey, I am the decider of what laws we’re going to enforce around here."

&

"(Y)ou should read “federal law enforcement priorities” as code for “Obama’s decision not to fully enforce immigration laws.” He is the president, dammit, and he doesn’t want his nullification of Congress’s laws to be nullified."

There are good reasons this has gone all the way to the Supreme Court, after all.

"Congress has passed laws and expects them to be enforced. Obama surely has discretion, but that discretion should not extend to non-enforcement. And that is what he seems to seek: the ability not to enforce federal immigration law." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

4/25

re: "State Department: We did not equate the Arizona immigration law with Chinese human rights abuses"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") explained the context.

Money quote(s):

" "The only thing that was said was that the debate is about a law that some critics would say has the unintended consequence to discriminate against legal or illegal residents. We did not comment on the particulars of whether that's true or not," Posner explained."

CN - Commentary: The Obama Administration should challenge Arizona's discriminatory law against Hispanics

From my archive of press clippings:

Caribbean Netnews.Com

Commentary: The Obama Administration should challenge Arizona's discriminatory law against Hispanics

Published on Saturday, May 1, 2010

By Wellington C Ramos


Recently, the Republican Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer signed a law that will give law enforcement authorities in the state of Arizona the authority to stop any person and ask them for their identification and, if they are suspected to be in the country illegally, be detained, apprehended and brought into custody then be deported back to their country. The Governor and her Republican Party in the United States have consistently opposed any federal legislation to reform immigration in the United States which has about twenty million illegal aliens living in this country for years, faith in limbo while pending their documentation.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"They claim that the reason for this law is because the federal government has failed in stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border between Mexico and the United States from coming into the United States."

Well, it doesn't seem to me that the problem Arizona faces is an influx of boat people, after all.

"This action on their part is in violation of Article-14 of the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause, which states that all American citizens should be treated equally despite their race, color, creed or religion.

This State Law could also be deemed in violation of the Supremacy Clause, which states that States can make no laws that are contrary to the laws passed by the US Congress."

And yet the Arizona immigration law only makes illegal under state law what is already illegal under federal law. Curious.

"I am appealing to the President to instruct his Attorney General William Holder to file a suit against the State of Arizona in the United States Supreme Court to challenge this law. Under the US Constitution, immigration is not a function of the states prescribed in Article-X for them to be engaged in but rather for the Federal Government."

The U.S. Constitution only has seven articles. Count them yourself. I did. There is a Section 10 in Art. I, which deals with the powers reserved to the states rather than Congress, but there's no mention of immigration.

The Tenth Amendment, on the other hand, seems to argue the other way than Prof. Ramos intends:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"In the US Constitution, the role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws of the land. In the past, the court has interpreted the laws unfavorably to the citizens of the country."

Prof. Ramos follows this statement with the example of Plessy v. Ferguson. Personally, I think he could have found a lot more recent examples, but they wouldn't have tended to buttress his argument.

&

"I have faith, trust and confidence in this President that he will act quickly to void this law."

Since this is a state law, not one which crosses his desk in the Oval Office and is thus subject to presidential veto, this will not be a simple thing for the president to accomplish by himself.

_____
Born in Dangriga Town, the cultural capital of Belize, Wellington Ramos has BAs in Political Science and History from Hunter College, NY, and an MA in Urban Studies from Long Island University. He is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science and History

re: "Arizona House Mulling Bill to Require That Presidential Candidates Present Qualifications to Be On Ballot"

Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades HQ has the scoop on some proposed legislation out west.

Money quote(s):

"Seems like an eminently reasonable law to me. And much more constitutional than using the courts to topple a presidency. "

re: "Arizona's New Illegal Immigration Law"

Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades HQ critiqued some legislation on its way to the desk of Arizona's governor.

Money quote(s):

"The bill has plenty to commend it. It prohibits localities from enacting rules to prevent the enforcement of immigration laws, like Los Angeles' infamous Special Order 40. It also prohibits them from withholding from other agencies or the federal government information relating to the immigration status of individuals.

It makes an alien's failure to carry an immigration document on their person a state crime (in addition to the federal crime) and imposes additional penalties for repeat offenders and offenders with a range of aggravating factors like gun or drug possession or prior removal orders.

The law makes it a crime to solicit work as a day laborer or to hire day laborers."

&

"I have no problem with the police checking on the immigration status of arrestees and maybe even criminal suspects. But sending them after folks who have lawful contact with the police will lead to more crime and more victims. And it won't solve the illegal alien problem."

S&S - Airman’s remains found in Vietnam

Stars and Stripes

Airman’s remains found in Vietnam


Pacific edition, Sunday, April 5, 2009


The remains of a Phoenix airman were found in Vietnam and will be returned to his family for burial with full military honors, the Department of Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office said Thursday.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Lt. Col. Earl P. Hopper Jr. was flying in a four-ship combat patrol near Hanoi on Jan. 10, 1968, when his F-4D Phantom was hit by a surface-to-air missile. Hopper’s co-pilot, Capt. Keith Hall, said he told Hopper to eject, but Hopper’s ejection seat wouldn’t release."

CW - Obama's DHS pick may find support for raising H-1B cap at confirmation hearing. Joseph Lieberman, whose committee oversees homeland security, has

From my archive of press clippings:

Computer World

Obama's DHS pick may find support for raising H-1B cap at confirmation hearing. Joseph Lieberman, whose committee oversees homeland security, has been both a critic and a supporter of the H-1B program.

By Patrick Thibodeau December 2, 2008 (Computerworld)

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama's pick to lead the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will face a confirmation hearing before a Senate committee whose chairman, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Ind.-Conn.), has been both a critic and a defender of the H-1B program. The Connecticut senator's most recent action on the program came in April, when he backed legislation seeking a major increase in the number of H-1B visas that are issued.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who was officially nominated yesterday to lead the DHS, is a strong advocate for increasing the H-1B cap."

&

"The USCIS found widespread fraud, including the existence of shell companies, in the H-1B program."