Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?

[kylie]

If the Fderal Government can nitpick you must aid us in finding ,say, a murderer of a Fderal agent up for just a Federal crime but no immigration is our turf and then why should the states bother helping in Federal crimes

The simple answer is that federal law preempts state law.  That’s the price of being in a federal system.  If the federal government wished, it could cut all sorts of funding to Arizona because it doesn’t like how they’re operating. 

I would say if I was the Governor of Arizona fine unless a crime is a state crime but Federal no officer from the local to state level will assist you in any cases. Your on your own.

Yes, anyone can play at doing it their way anyway.  Do they want Arizona criminals tracked across state lines at all (first immigrants, then it could be more as Washington becomes more exasperated)?  It’s going to become like the gay marriage situation.  You’re allowed here, but you lose your benefits and children if you cross that state line again…  At least until push comes to shove, when the federal government could finally use federal agents or even the military to actively monitor the situation specifically for state abuses.  Or perhaps better:  We could take off what federal patrols are on the border looking south for a month or so, just to make a point.  Not too good for law and order, would probably leave the area with some murders of immigrants…  But I doubt even the local militia groups would be sizeable or qualified enough to replace the federal assets, complain though the state might about wanting more.

         Far before that, though…  Even if the court upheld the Arizona law, the Executive can simply say:  “We don’t think this is the right time to do this,” or “It’s going to place an unacceptable drain upon us.  You say you’re enforcing federal law, but we have the right to determine who goes and to keep immigration records.  When you call us to do that, you’re going to face an endless phone tree until you revoke that law.  If you detain or deport without our say so, then the courts have already said that much is in violation.  Must we station ICE primarily to monitor and let people out of jail, if necessary?”

[kylie]

They don't have to check everyone. Randomly selecting employers to check compliance merely needs increased and made more thorough when it does happen.

Perhaps, although I think there is actually a class aspect to this.  If it’s true that illegal immigrants tend to be less wealthy than other residents, then the police may be even more likely to scrutinize poorer people as well as those who they think fit a racial type.  I also expect more employers might oppose the law if it were focused as you say, making it more likely to affect them directly.  The state seems happy to pick on people suspected of a crime (did they say suspected but not convicted?!), but revamping industry arrangements may be another thing entirely. 

         We also haven’t established about how many of these immigrants remain employed in Arizona each season, as opposed to moving on to other places.  At which point, the courts might reexamine things like commerce law.  Does immigration law trump commerce law such that Arizona has the right to shut down other states’ economic dealings with immigrants, simply because they committed some misdimeanor and then were suspected of being illegal…  Because it seems that is the part of the story they’re offering.

[Zakharra]

 Ok then Kylie, here's a question for you. When should the States DO the job the federal government is actively and purposefully failing to do? The federtal government has admited it is NOT enforcinbg the immigration laws and is alowinbg cities to openly hide illegals. At what point is it ok for the States to tell the feds to Fuck off and do the job within in their own borders?

Remember, the federal government only has the authority given to it by the Constitution. EVERYTHING else automatically goes to the States. EVERYthing.  You seem to be arguing that if the Federal government passes a law, no State can make a law that is more restrictive/less restrictive or do anytrhing that might have a smidgin of a chance of hindering it.

One of the functions of the Fed is to protect the LEGAL citizens and legal aliems. Anyone that is here illegally is a criminal, just by being here. The federal government, pushed by the President (and he's a damned poor excuse for a President) is admitting that is had no intention of enforcing a law, a law already in place to deal with  the illegals.  They have a responsibility to enforce the law and they are deliberately ignoring that.

The Arizona law would noty deport the illegals, it would have them over to ICE, with proof of their illegality. The law as it stabds is not racist despite what some people might claim. It only deals with one thing and one thing only. Illegal aliens.

[Zakharra]

           Far before that, though…  Even if the court upheld the Arizona law, the Executive can simply say:  “We don’t think this is the right time to do this,” or “It’s going to place an unacceptable drain upon us.  You say you’re enforcing federal law, but we have the right to determine who goes and to keep immigration records.  When you call us to do that, you’re going to face an endless phone tree until you revoke that law.  If you detain or deport without our say so, then the courts have already said that much is in violation.  Must we station ICE primarily to monitor and let people out of jail, if necessary?”

So you are saying that the President can decide what laws to enforce and not to enforce? Even existing laws that are on the books?

[RubySlippers]

          The simple answer is that federal law preempts state law.  That’s the price of being in a federal system.  If the federal government wished, it could cut all sorts of funding to Arizona because it doesn’t like how they’re operating. 
          Yes, anyone can play at doing it their way anyway.  Do they want Arizona criminals tracked across state lines at all (first immigrants, then it could be more as Washington becomes more exasperated)?  It’s going to become like the gay marriage situation.  You’re allowed here, but you lose your benefits and children if you cross that state line again…  At least until push comes to shove, when the federal government could finally use federal agents or even the military to actively monitor the situation specifically for state abuses.  Or perhaps better:  We could take off what federal patrols are on the border looking south for a month or so, just to make a point.  Not too good for law and order, would probably leave the area with some murders of immigrants…  But I doubt even the local militia groups would be sizeable or qualified enough to replace the federal assets, complain though the state might about wanting more.

         Far before that, though…  Even if the court upheld the Arizona law, the Executive can simply say:  “We don’t think this is the right time to do this,” or “It’s going to place an unacceptable drain upon us.  You say you’re enforcing federal law, but we have the right to determine who goes and to keep immigration records.  When you call us to do that, you’re going to face an endless phone tree until you revoke that law.  If you detain or deport without our say so, then the courts have already said that much is in violation.  Must we station ICE primarily to monitor and let people out of jail, if necessary?”

Again, no issue save state level law enforcement should not then be required to involve themselves in any Federal Crime. There ARE Federal Law Enforcement after all why expect any in-state help? If immigration is de facto off limits then ALL Federal Crimes should be. Anyway they are following precedent locating criminals then turning them over to the Feds so why is that rong? If these were interstate/international slavers no one would argue arrests by a county sheriff as acceptable then sending them to the FBI.

This is no different.

[Lyell]

I would just like to point out that Arizona's law doesn't state any new authority to deport. What it is (supposedly) intended to do is to identify potential illegal immigrants among people who've already committed crimes. Actual discerning of whether or not the person is in the country legally is decided by INS.

[cassia]

If enough people in Congress think that the federal laws dealing with illegal immigrants are unfair or otherwise bad and not to be enforced, there are proper procedures for dealing with that. Looking the other way and outright refusing to enforce the federal law that the federal government created are not among them. They can seek to repeal it, create a new and less restrictive law that supersedes it, or formally amend it with exceptions and temporary suspensions. Until immigration law is officially changed, it is the law and the government has a responsibility to enforce it as well as possible. Even if it upsets some people.

[Lyell]

It sounds to me as though "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" has lost sight of who it serves when it decides when it shall and shall not enforce its laws.

[Zakharra]

It sounds to me as though "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" has lost sight of who it serves when it decides when it shall and shall not enforce its laws.

Pretty much.

[RubySlippers]

I would just like to point out that Arizona's law doesn't state any new authority to deport. What it is (supposedly) intended to do is to identify potential illegal immigrants among people who've already committed crimes. Actual discerning of whether or not the person is in the country legally is decided by INS.

Exactly the state law is "you must show legally issued identification when asked under consideration of another charge" in other words: what every officer does anyway. If they don't have identification a state identification, green card, passport, visa then its a misdemeanor in the state - a state charge. Then they turn the party over to the appropriate Federal agency for processing. They are not making a decision as to their immigration policy they are just enforcing the laws already in place as state officers are allowed and by courts required to do at this point.

If the INS refuses Arizona should sue them to take these criminals and do their jobs.

[kylie]

            Oh, I didn't realize this sort of link auto-inserted... Wow.   

U.S. v. Arizona - Complaint Filed 7-6-2010
         
          As I understand it, the Arizona effort attempted (and at least for now, failed) to make it a state requirement for many or all Hispanics (effectively) to carry documentation of their citizenship at all times.  Such a state requirement would violate equal protection by actively making a specific population more vulnerable to interference.  It doesn't matter who is legal.  Commit any crime whatsoever, and you are also held for immigration checks until proven innocent.  Who is most likely to be presumed guilty until reviewed for immigration with no other cause?  Hispanics.  (Bolding in the quotes is mine.)

It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070’s “attrition through enforcement” approach.

It also attempted to force local police to act on immigration law in a way that the federal government was not encouraging them to do, by explicitly making them liable to lawsuits.  This meant that the state would actually encourage anyone with the money, to go to court against local authorities in order to each argue their own interpretation of who should be merely "suspect" of immigration violations.  This means that there would not be one criteria for how people should be investigated for immigration violations.  There could be a slew of individual court cases constantly challenging standards in each town, or even each case.  Even before the fact, some local police stated flat out that they would refuse such a directive, and some parties expressed their intention to sue them.

The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country...  Implementation of the law will damage the United States' ability to speak with a single and authoritative voice to foreign governments on immigration matters…

Zak, Ruby, Lyell, I can't support certain premises:  1) That every law could be enforced in equal intensity, 2) that a law can stand without regard for other laws and policies, or 3) that discretionary application is really unique to this situation (or perhaps, less acceptable here than elsewhere).  Although it’s certainly possible to interpret the Tenth Amendment too broadly and say the states do whatever they want in the name of enforcing a particular federal policy, in order to rationalize AZ's formalizing a policy of rather indiscriminate sweep...  The particular sense of “action” Arizona has chosen undermines civil rights for legal citizens, weakens relations with Mexico, and so far harms the economy to boot.  All of those are valid federal matters.  These priorities also suggest possible reasons why the federal enforcement has been as limited as it has to date.  Yes, it is up to Washington which receives what kind of treatment, and when.  Unless one prefers to secede.  Argue about effectiveness of various Executive (or Congressional) directives  as you will, but that doesn’t make for legality.

19. In crafting federal immigration law and policy, Congress has necessarily taken into account multiple and often competing national interests. Assuring effective enforcement of the provisions against illegal migration and unlawful presence is a highly important interest, but it is not the singular goal of the federal immigration laws. The laws also take into account other uniquely national interests, including facilitating trade and commerce; welcoming those foreign nationals who visit or immigrate lawfully and ensuring their fair and equitable treatment wherever they may reside; responding to humanitarian concerns at the global and individual levels; and otherwise ensuring that the treatment of aliens present in our nation does not harm our foreign relations with the countries from which they come or jeopardize the treatment of U.S. citizens abroad. Because immigration control and management is “a field where flexibility and the adaptation of the congressional policy to infinitely variable conditions constitute the essence of the program,” U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543 (1950) (internal citations omitted), Congress vested substantial discretion in the President and the administering federal agencies to adjust the balance of these multiple interests as appropriate – both globally and in individual cases.

It would also be disingenuous to suggest that uncomfortable juggling of immigration etc. is something unique to the Obama administration.  Bush Jr., for one, tried to balance amnesty with added troops and walls.  When Republicans were in office, it was all “the decider,” but now that Obama shows up, hear the screams for more filibusters “more bipartisanship please” or else, oh it’s all “the dictator” and “a federal takeover.”  I’m still not impressed by the arguments at hand.  Argue about the money if you must (or human rights if you can), but the “enforcing law and order” rhetoric is a blunt and piggish instrument as applied by the right in this case.  The premises are  awkward to begin with.  Unless the point is to stir up anti-federal sentiment?  Then they’re lovely.  But the issue is not nearly as easy as that logic suggests.

          The federal government is apparently more interested in processing illegals associated with specific types of crime.  People with a history who authorities have taken some time to also build a serious immigration case against.  That is, not merely those picked up on the street for some minor violation, and then threatened with deportation on top of it.  The feds are not interested in receiving a large number of people against whom Arizona may have no more complaint than lack of documentation and undefined "suspicion."  Or perhaps all they have is “fleeing arrest,” if that person just really didn’t want to be held up in the police station today… 

In exercising its significant enforcement discretion, the federal government prioritizes for arrest, detention, prosecution, and removal those aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety. Consistent with these enforcement priorities, the federal government principally targets aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage; aliens convicted of crimes, with a particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders; certain gang members; aliens subject to outstanding criminal warrants; and fugitive aliens, especially those with criminal records.

Perhaps if Arizona could do any better in proposing a program that would actually uphold civil rights and not exacerbate so many other federal issues, the response would be different.  I don’t think the political reception for Hispanics is ideal as things are, and I believe some of the illegal workers face very exploitative conditions.  But I also think this law creates ever wider problems in the current environment.  In the process, it tries to make AZ exceptional and thus challenges DC for jurisdiction.  It may not even work the issue it claims to address, say if people go underground well or when various local courts maintain separate definitions of acceptable detention. 

          If the argument is going to be about upholding federal law, then Arizona has to uphold all concerns of law in the federal system.  It has to positively account for civil rights.  They should not be creating a situation where the center says, you’re both stepping into trade and diplomacy and not heeding current agency policy on immigration. 

16. The Constitution affords the President of the United States the authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const., art. II § 3. Further, the President has broad authority over foreign affairs. Immigration law, policy, and enforcement priorities are affected by and have impacts on U.S. foreign policy, and are themselves the subject of diplomatic arrangements.

Add to that: If they’re going to make a state law encouraging action on any particular federal law, it must be able to specify how police could equitably include (or exclude!) people as suspects. 

          Now I don’t know that laws in general do that so elegantly, really…  Still, the Arizona move neglects those conditions so much, that it seems designed more to stir up xenophobia than to affect the issues.  I suppose if it were fully allowed (setting aside later civil rights suits), it might lead Washington to raise legal immigration quotas from South Asia.  Unless the national economy changes drastically, it’s just another gasp of “invasion” from a bloc that can’t seem to maintain anything domestically.  States don’t get to decide what is invasion, though.  Washington does.

[Lyell]

It seems to me as though a major factor is being over-looked, that being the actual proceedure and protocol in action. What driver who can communicate clearly with an officer, correctly identify themselves and has a proper driver's lisence (or DPS entry) and proof of insurance (both required, as far as I know, by most states) is going to be asked for their immigration papers? By practice the answer should be none. The reason behind there being a certain level of vaugeness to it, like most proceedures that are written, is to leave a certain level of discretion to the officer. If I had written that document however, I would have been much stricter with the criteria for determining suspicion. I would also have limited detention in regards to those with a questionable alien status to those convicted, awaiting conviction or staying in the "drunk tank" anyways. Minor offenders suspect to be illegal aliens I would probably have a make/model/V.I.N. and a list of their 'aliases' on file pending a go or no go from INS. Then again, I've just barely scratched the surface on law.

If you really are so hell bent on leaving the left vs. right out of this then why not stop leaning on that statement like a crutch? (And then bashing the right immediately afterwards.) We know we had a republican president for eight years, we know that you don't think Obama's a dictator. Trust me, you've only told us four times already. Recognising that there is a problem and the current solutions aren't fixing it is not the same as promoting political anarchy, try as you might to restate that time and again. It's not as though SB-1070 is the first to butt heads with federal law. Prop 215 outright contradicts federal law. How's that for anarchy? And if you really want to bring money into this again, I thought NAFTA was supposed to fix Mexico's economy and make it desirable to be there. Where did that go wrong? Why are people fleeing poverty? Why are you so sure we have the funds to shoulder that burden? These are questions I've asked repeatedly with no answer.

If the federal government had a tighter control on it's borders in the first place there wouldn't BE so many issues to exacerbate. As it stands I doubt truly whether a third of the illegal immigrant population could pass the citizenship exam without asking for a spanish version. One which will ofcourse have to be provided. Wouldn't want to upset the civil rights activists.

[RubySlippers]

I wrote a friend who is an aid to one of the Arizona state legislature and suggested this:

Make not having proper identification a higher level Misdemeanor if one is a legal adult helping people get one if homeless or thereis a reason its difficult with supports.

Make using a fake identification with a photo on it a Felony by an adult.

Make using said identification a crime and a Felony say: fraudulent identification to decieve a state officer or designated party who is required to use said identification.

Then make it if you meet all three standards a felony that must have the two felonies applied.

And add any Federal charge at the Felony level is treated as a Felony by the state for adding seriousness to the charge when considered bythe judge.

Since most illegals use fake documentation of some sort you can nail them on these as state charges and jail them, then at that time turn them over to the INS. They are very unlikely going to not act with a felon being properly convicted of state crimes back to their home nation. And since not carrying proper documentation happens to be a Federal crime they then have the added Federal Charge. Lock up enough of these illegals maybe they will just leave the state. And since all this is state crimes not even touching immigration proper it should be outside Federal consideration. And its race neutral if you use said ID to trick an employer or landlord or free clinic - BAMMO. Just as much as using it for other uses like identifying yourself to a police officer.

[Zakharra]

As I understand it, the Arizona effort attempted (and at least for now, failed) to make it a state requirement for many or all Hispanics (effectively) to carry documentation of their citizenship at all times.  Such a state requirement would violate equal protection by actively making a specific population more vulnerable to interference.  It doesn't matter who is legal.  Commit any crime whatsoever, and you are also held for immigration checks until proven innocent.  Who is most likely to be presumed guilty until reviewed for immigration with no other cause?  Hispanics.  (Bolding in the quotes is mine.)

The law is targeted to illegals. Not to hispanics.

[RubySlippers]

Thats why they should focus on the quality and legal use of the documents in the state, fake documents and using them should be two felonies and state level crimes to fight "identification crimes and use of documents unlawfully" a broad stroke that would include illegals. Then if arrested and convicted after serving their time the state could move to deport since they would now be guilty of two felonies in a state and illegally in the nation.

Do enough arrests you could get some impact and also go after any crimes that use identification that is false or misusing them.

[Lyell]

They don't even need to make arrests for the law to be effective at what it was intended to do. An article on CBS dated April 29th of 2010 reads:

Many of the cars that once stopped in the Home Depot parking lot to pick up day laborers to hang drywall or do landscaping now just drive on by.

Arizona's sweeping immigration bill allows police to arrest illegal immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them. It won't take effect until summer but it is already having an effect on the state's underground economy.

"Nobody wants to pick us up," Julio Loyola Diaz says in Spanish as he and dozens of other men wait under the shade of palo verde trees and lean against a low brick wall outside the east Phoenix home improvement store.

Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.

Supporters of the law hope it creates jobs for thousands of Americans.

"We want to drive day labor away," says Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's sponsors.

An estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants have left Arizona in the past two years as it cracked down on illegal immigration and its economy was especially hard hit by the Great Recession. A Department of Homeland Security report on illegal immigrants estimates Arizona's illegal immigrant population peaked in 2008 at 560,000, and a year later dipped to 460,000.

[Zakharra]

 Woo hoo! Positive impact.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Woo hoo! Positive impact.

An impact, yes.  Positive?  Depends on who you ask.  Let's bear in mind those workers do have families.  And this is going to distort the labor market there.  All well and good to say, "Oh, Americans will take those jobs," but will they really?

I'm not without sympathy for the argument that these immigrants take jobs.  But let's be real here.  The outsourcing and offshoring of America's industrial base (which was blessed by many of the same conservative politicians pushing immigration crackdowns) has inflicted orders of magnitude more damage to American workers than Mexican immigrants.  The migrants take almost exclusively low-end, unskilled jobs.  Many of the jobs lost through "free trade" were high-paying white collar jobs--the kind a man could work at and support a wife and a couple kids while saving for his own retirement.  So I would like to ask the pro-SB1070 crowd, well, if this is about jobs, what do they propose to do about the tens of millions of middle-class jobs lost to the free-trade obsession?

I think the short-term economic effects of this exodus of low-end labor will in fact be negative for Arizona.  Contrary to conservative propaganda, most of the immigrants came to work.  Most in fact do work.  So we're going to have fewer (in some cases, significantly fewer) workers dropping their pay into local businesses.  I see destruction of demand for all sorts of goods and services, as well as a hit to sales tax receipts in areas where the immigrants congregated, starting here in Q3 and continuing through at least Q4 if not Q1 and Q2 of 2011.   

[Lyell]

I just love this argument to pieces. Really, I do. Because for some reason I've had it shoved down my throat at every turn that I don't want these jobs that illegal migrants have taken. Have you ever actually asked someone who has lost their job to the economic downturn and hasn't been able to replace it? I've been unemployed for several months now and picking strawberries is looking very promising as a means to keep up with rent and bills. Imagine that same mind set across the nearly ten percent of Arizona's unemployed legal population. It's strange how being hungry and watching your investments wither into a fraction of their value will change your mind about working a minimum wage job. Assuming those markets are willing to pay minimum wage after getting away with slave wages for so long.

I predict that there will be more, perhaps even significantly more, money spent at local businesses because most of these people would be spending their money in the U.S. Instead of sending it to Mexico.

[Oniya]

Assuming those markets are willing to pay minimum wage after getting away with slave wages for so long.

This may be the point that the argument turns on.  I've been looking into minimum wage jobs to supplement the sometimes-erratic contract work I normally do, so I know how swamped the job market is.  A critical factor is making enough money to cover the cost of getting to work.  If the employers aren't willing to pay minimum wage, then I suspect that you might have second or third thoughts.

[Zakharra]

An impact, yes.  Positive?  Depends on who you ask.  Let's bear in mind those workers do have families.  And this is going to distort the labor market there.  All well and good to say, "Oh, Americans will take those jobs," but will they really?

I'm not without sympathy for the argument that these immigrants take jobs.  But let's be real here.  The outsourcing and offshoring of America's industrial base (which was blessed by many of the same conservative politicians pushing immigration crackdowns) has inflicted orders of magnitude more damage to American workers than Mexican immigrants.  The migrants take almost exclusively low-end, unskilled jobs.  Many of the jobs lost through "free trade" were high-paying white collar jobs--the kind a man could work at and support a wife and a couple kids while saving for his own retirement.  So I would like to ask the pro-SB1070 crowd, well, if this is about jobs, what do they propose to do about the tens of millions of middle-class jobs lost to the free-trade obsession?

I think the short-term economic effects of this exodus of low-end labor will in fact be negative for Arizona.  Contrary to conservative propaganda, most of the immigrants came to work.  Most in fact do work.  So we're going to have fewer (in some cases, significantly fewer) workers dropping their pay into local businesses.  I see destruction of demand for all sorts of goods and services, as well as a hit to sales tax receipts in areas where the immigrants congregated, starting here in Q3 and continuing through at least Q4 if not Q1 and Q2 of 2011.   

I understand they have families, but simply.. I don't care. They are here ILLEGALLY. I could care less if they have 6 children, 14 grandchildren and a  few great grandchildren on the way.  By being here illegally, they are profiting from this country and if businesses can't adapt, let them fail.  There might well be a short term hit, but long term can be good because the businesses that survive will be better and be hiring legal citizens so no ICE/INS raid will be able to fine them since there would be no illegals working there.

[RubySlippers]

An impact, yes.  Positive?  Depends on who you ask.  Let's bear in mind those workers do have families.  And this is going to distort the labor market there.  All well and good to say, "Oh, Americans will take those jobs," but will they really?

I'm not without sympathy for the argument that these immigrants take jobs.  But let's be real here.  The outsourcing and offshoring of America's industrial base (which was blessed by many of the same conservative politicians pushing immigration crackdowns) has inflicted orders of magnitude more damage to American workers than Mexican immigrants.  The migrants take almost exclusively low-end, unskilled jobs.  Many of the jobs lost through "free trade" were high-paying white collar jobs--the kind a man could work at and support a wife and a couple kids while saving for his own retirement.  So I would like to ask the pro-SB1070 crowd, well, if this is about jobs, what do they propose to do about the tens of millions of middle-class jobs lost to the free-trade obsession?

I think the short-term economic effects of this exodus of low-end labor will in fact be negative for Arizona.  Contrary to conservative propaganda, most of the immigrants came to work.  Most in fact do work.  So we're going to have fewer (in some cases, significantly fewer) workers dropping their pay into local businesses.  I see destruction of demand for all sorts of goods and services, as well as a hit to sales tax receipts in areas where the immigrants congregated, starting here in Q3 and continuing through at least Q4 if not Q1 and Q2 of 2011.   

Lets see you pay more for the work and offer benefits Americans will do most jobs the fact they used to work in animal meat processing and did it for safetymeasures, benefits and more pay proves that.  The new labor tossed out the old since they will work for less and don't care about safety as much as a union master butcher at a pork processing plant where myrelatives worked in the 70's and 80's before foreign labor came in.

Don't you ever say that Americans work hard but we do as ones of any race wants to make money sufficient for the efforts, say farm labor you pay an average High School grad $15 an hour plus benefits they would likely work at such jobs. But food would cost a little more. After all unpleasant work often had to pay higher wages my uncle at the time made over $28 an hour as head butcher on the line with his union training and seniority. But meat did cost more that is a fair exchangewith I will note these jobs needing only a High School diploma.

And illegal immigration is not fair to those that came here legally, to others that would take work if it paid properly and givien proper benefits must I add this includes everyone born here including those of many descents.

[mieko]

In my mind I have to say it's a simple cut and dry arguement. The fact that they are here 'illegally' means just that. They are doing something illegal. I'll never understand how there's any justification for it. They should have to follow the same procedures every other person who chooses to come to this country has to. My husband is from overseas and we had to do everything by the book. And believe me it's not cheap and it's tedious. So if we did it the right way, why should other's be excluded from that?

The fact of the job market is this, all of these companies that hire illegal immigrants need to be given more than a slap on the wrist, because they're as much to blame as the illegal immigrants. The fact of the matter is there is not such thing as employer loyalty anymore it seems. Companies want to get the cheapest labor they can and make the largest profit they can, and no matter how long you may have worked for them the'll dump you the first chance they get if they can hire someone to do the same job for half the price. o.0

Okay I'm not saying every company in the country is like this but it sure does seem that way sometimes doesn't it?

[kylie]

If the federal government had a tighter control on it's borders in the first place there wouldn't BE so many issues to exacerbate.

That is not historically accurate.  Slavery came before a long and continuing struggle for civil rights.  It was quite legal.  Chinese railroad labor came before the Chinese Exclusion Act, which then made it legal to target people the government was previously so interested in legally hosting.  If the atmosphere is heady enough, people can find a legal reason for all sorts of choices.  If only some judge of the day chooses to allow it, or some executive chooses to enforce it.  Or perhaps they'll take a look around, and decide hmm that isn't such a good idea for the good of the country and all the principles it has to balance.  http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=47

The Chinese Exclusion Act required the few nonlaborers who sought entry to obtain certification from the Chinese government that they were qualified to immigrate. But this group found it increasingly difficult to prove that they were not laborers because the 1882 act defined excludables as “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.” Thus very few Chinese could enter the country under the 1882 law.

The 1882 exclusion act also placed new requirements on Chinese who had already entered the country. If they left the United States, they had to obtain certifications to re-enter. Congress, moreover, refused State and Federal courts the right to grant citizenship to Chinese resident aliens, although these courts could still deport them.

In short, there have always been cross-cutting issues throughout the history of the United States.  That goes with having ready sources of labor for whatever the less desirable job of the day is, and with business giving workers in that industry low security and minimal payment.  In the short run, it's called national economic good.  In the long run, it happens to make for a more diverse and flexible culture, to the extent we don't manage to scare each group away completely after the fact.  To only mention the positively famous sorts:  Where would the US be without all the once-embattled Italians and Irish who built up the East, the Chinese doctors, German scientists, Jewish academics?  Not to mention historically the Black plantation laborers and now Hispanic field workers and housekeepers?  Legal or not, the economy hasn't been equal or fair to any of them.   

         Earlier, we've seen some people trying to argue that immigration is too easy on Hispanics because earlier immigrant groups had to suffer harder working conditions, and even discriminatory social conditions.  Which may or may not have been legal at the time, but would hardly pass muster now -- that is, if they were actually subjected to review.  Either support working one's way up through gross adversity without formal equality, or hold up equal opportunity under the law for everyone and keep it there.  But that's it.  The economy isn't set up to work that way.  We see it with glass ceilings on gender and elusive employer actions on race, too.  As long as there is little such basic equality, the government has a liability to everyone the system exploits -- no matter whether they happen to be citizens or not.  I do think it's more reasonable to argue about whether and heavens, how, that might change.  Rather than to go on and on:  Oh look this law is on the books, so we must toss aside everything else and go into the deep end of the pool about this and this only.  Anyway, I'm more than a little skeptical that the business leaders of America would really adopt an egalitarian system across the board.   

[Zakharra]

 I'm all for hammering the businesses that hire illegals. Hit them with a .5% tax rate increase for every illegal found working in their work force. They'd dump them so fast it wouldn't be funny. It would make them take a much harder look at their workers history, or at the least, verify the SS numbers are accurate and that they have proof they are in the country legally.