Arizona Immigration Law

[River]

For as long as there have been humans, there have been free-riders. It's just a type. My youngest sister is a free-rider, though it's our parents she rides on. If our parents, however, were unable to afford her or just had the backbone to kick her out of the house (I'm utterly shocked, really; growing up they always seemed like such hard-*****) she'd probably be in the system or she'd have a sugar-daddy or somesuch. The free-riders will not just magically disappear if the public aid programs did. At some point, you just have to accept that these people exist but the fact that there is such an obnoxious minority should not make us afraid of extending a helping hand to those who are in need.

[Holbytla]

Holby, I definitely agree with you that immigration overhaul should be a priority. I would much prefer that we find a way to make our current illegal immigrants legal and provide a better way for temporary and permanent legal entry into the US. But the reality of the situation is that effective immigration reform is not in the immediate future. And in the meantime, I don't believe we should punish people who moved here illegally as children by denying them an affordable college education.
Of course there will be illegal immigrants who will scam the system. I bet that there are many more citizens of America who scam the welfare system. Does this make me angry? Of course, and I think we should work on ways to improve these systems to prevent misuse. However, we will always have the free rider problem. That shouldn't deter us from giving benefits to those who really need them.

I bolded the pertinent part regarding my retort.

So instead you would punish the children and parents of legal citizens by higher taxes to pay for illegals? I know where you went to school, and I know the cost of tuition. Multiply that by 4 or so and tell me why I should pay or help pay that insiduous amount and then have to pay for someone who is in this country illegally on top of that.

How about we help the legal citizens first, last and everywhere in between and take the appropriate actions for the illegal part? I don't think it is fair to gloss over the initial crime and while I feel for the child in question, crime has many victims.

Once again, morality is another matter altogether and I have housed indigent people while at a time I was attempting to suppport 4 kids. If we are speaking in legal terms, then really the outcome is pretty simple. If we are talking morality, then that is another question.

When you combine the two, we end up in situations like this with arcane laws that piss most of the people off and serve little purpose beyond divisiveness.

So given the laws we have in place now, why is it so reprehensible to follow them? Because they are outdated and don't account for the reality of today. So change the laws. Until that time, follow them of choose anarchy.

Seriously, we can't pick and choose what laws are ok to follow and what laws are not. Especially if we decide that based on who it helps and when. There are too many stigmas attached to people.
I can no more afford to pay that extra tax than that child can live without it. Yet because I have a stigma attached to me, I am going to eat that burden will or nill, and that is inherently unfair. And illegal imo.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

When discussing a court case, I think it is helpful to know exactly what the court actually decided. Unfortunately, the media rarely does a good job of providing that information. The primary basis of the court's holding was that CaliforniaEd. Code, § 68130.5 (the law in question) does not violate a federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1623, which provides that an alien not lawfully present in this country shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of this country is eligible for that benefit, because the exemption provided by section 68130.5 (which applies to both illegal aliens and residents of other states), is not actually based on residency. To quote Justice Chin (the conservative justice who wrote the unanimous decision of the court), "Because the exemption is given to all who have attended high school in California for at least three years (and meet the other requirements), and not all who have done so qualify as California residents for purposes of in-state tuition, and further because not all unlawful aliens who would qualify as residents but for their unlawful status are eligible for the exemption, we conclude the exemption is not based on residence in California. Rather, it is based on other criteria. Accordingly, section 68130.5 does not violate section 1623." Thus, the actual holding doesn't allow all illegal aliens in California to get the in-state tuition rate. It just allows those who have been attending California high schools for at least three years and meet other criteria to do so. Moreover, allowing them to do so does not prevent a single American citizen (or legal alien) from being eligible for the in-state tuition rate. Were Holby to have a child who went to high school in California for at least three years, that child would be able to get the in-state tuition rate irregardless of whether that rate is available to any illegal immigrants, and were that child not to have attended high school in California for at least three years, he or she would not eligible for the in-state tuition rate, again irregardless of whether the rate is available to any illegal immigrants.

From a legal point of view, the court's decision really is unassailable, as evidenced by the facts that it was a fairly rare unanimous decision, written by one of the court's most conservative members. Morally, it's very difficult for me to understand how someone can advocate for some kind of amnesty program for illegal immigrants currently in this country and oppose this decision. The two positions seem contradictory to me.

[anthriel]

Morally, it's very difficult for me to understand how someone can advocate for some kind of amnesty program for illegal immigrants currently in this country and oppose this decision. The two positions seem contradictory to me.

Maybe it's just out of order. We need to fix the issue with the waves of people who come here and live illegally... as Griffy says, there must be some overreaching problem at home that makes living here under the radar their whole life end up being the better choice. Because of that, their children are being raised here in the shadows, prey to unthinkable crimes because they are afraid to be seen. They are in a horrible position... Americans, because they were raised in American society, going to American schools, speaking English and playing ball and being American kids.... but they really aren't. Not legally.

There HAS to be some sort of amnesty that addresses this.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sadly, as Griffy suggests, no amnesty program or any action on the part of the U.S. is going to solve the underlying problem, because the underlying problem does involve issues in the home country that make coming here - even illegally - the clear better answer than staying in the home country. As long as that doesn't change, the problem will continue unabated regardless of whatever efforts we make here, be it amnesty or immigration enforcement or border walls. Meanwhile, the people who are here and have been here for a long time are here; they are not going to be all deported (even if that were desirable, which is a debatable question). If one believes that some kind of amnesty program is desirable, than it stand to reason - at least to me - that providing access to education is also desirable. Otherwise it is simply a question of creating a permanent underclass. And I don't think that is a moral position.

[elfshadow]

Seriously, we can't pick and choose what laws are ok to follow and what laws are not. Especially if we decide that based on who it helps and when. There are too many stigmas attached to people.
I can no more afford to pay that extra tax than that child can live without it. Yet because I have a stigma attached to me, I am going to eat that burden will or nill, and that is inherently unfair. And illegal imo.

It's not a good choice to have to make, between paying extra taxes and barring people from getting a college education. But, for me, it's a pragmatic one. I don't see it quite so simply as, "They are illegal according to the current law, and that is that." I think we have to work with the system we have, which I do not think will enact any substantial and effective immigration reform in the near future. If this involves me paying a tiny amount of extra tax to help illegal immigrant kids get a college education, so be it. I understand not everyone feels this way. That's why we do need immigration reform. But, in the meantime, I would prefer to do what I feel is ethically right, since it seems as though there are no immediate legal solutions.


Voronwë, thanks for explaining the particulars of this case. It makes a lot of sense to me.

[yovargas]

Holby,
If your issue is proper following of legal procedures: the court declared that these kids without legal status could legally go to college. So now that's the law. What it means to have an "illegal" status is NOT (as you'd apparently want it to be) that you have no rights to anything anywhere. There are some things they can legally access and some things they can't. Schools has been determined to be one they can legally access. No contradiction in law to that unless you think the only proper legal solution is deportation or amnesty.

[Holbytla]

I've made some mistakes in responding in this thread. I never should have posted when I did, because I didn't give myself enough time to write or think things out clearly before I shot from the hip. I got wrapped up in the emotions of the issue and should have given myself some time before hitting submit.
But what is done is done. I can't change that, but I can maybe be more clear and address the issue as it should have been done in the first place.

Immigration issues in this country are complex and reach as far back as who knows when. To blithely try to corral them and pronounce judgment on the whole in one felt swoop isn't fair or accurate. I never meant to come across in that way, but I did.

I feel strongly about immigration issues and I do feel strongly about the illegality with regards to immigration issues. I feel strongly about the impact those issues have on this country.

I know full well that nothing is ever as cut and dried as "legal or not legal". Still you have to have some frame of reference or some type of sound footing amid the swirling vortex that is immigration.

For many years I have worked beside a score or so people, who were at one time "illegal" immigrants. I am well acquainted with the plights of those people, the struggles of trying to support families in two countries, the lost children who they tried to smuggle in, but were subsequently sold or kidnapped by who knows who and for what purpose, the lack of benefits, the racism and the overall conditions they have had to deal with. I have personally accepted into my home someone who had nowhere else to go and no means of support and was trying to escape a volatile situation.

I am not hardened to the ways of the needy and by no means am I unacquainted with that type of life.

Yet we live in a country that has done whatever it could, feebly at times I admit, to avoid anarchy and to be a country of laws while trying to assist those in need. We give more in aid to impoverished countries than most, if not all. We accept an "X" amount of immigrants to this country every year. Maybe that number isn't sufficient, and most likely we could do better. Still the country has set limits, and we have to have some basis of sustainability, and some measure of taking care of the citizens of this country. We have laws to try and protect us from being infiltrated by terrorists and drug dealers, all for the common good I would hope.

I know there were other kids in need, when I housed a child that was looking for a home. I know I could and probably should have done more. Yet at the same time I was obligated to think of my own children. Much the same way that this country has an obligation to its citizens.

The streets of most major cities are replete with homeless people. How many of us take those destitute people into our homes and do what we can to better their lives? At what cost to our own families and safety?

There are no easy moral answers to these questions and we do what we can. I think the laws governing immigration were originally designed to try and help immigrants in need while safeguarding the American people and attempting to ensure (the word may be insure but I get them mixed up) its fruition.

I believe the laws are outdated. I believe the current immigration laws should be amended to meet the current need of today's world. I also believe in laws as a basis of stability. I believe that for better or worse, we as a people elected politicians to write laws dealing with issues, such as immigration, and that they should be enforced and followed until better laws are enacted. We don't get to pick and choose what laws we can follow and what laws we cannot. An overburdened system and an influx of immigrants that we cannot control, is a symptom of issues that need be addressed, not laws that need be broken.

Easy for me to say. I'm not crawling though the dark and trying to scale a barbed wire fence, so I can make my way to a place that offers some type of menial employments, so I can sustain a bifurcated family.

Yet again, I do have responsibilities, I have done my part and paid my many taxes these long years and I have tried to do the right thing in a humanitarian sense.

Where do we draw the line? At what point do we we say I can't afford to take in another child in need for fear of endangering my own children? At what point do we say, ok we have done what we could as a country and in order to continue taking care of indigent people around the world in a meaningful way, we need to regulate the influx of the needy?

Well we draft laws of course, and in this time when the country is still reeling from mortgage-gate or Fannie-Mae-gate or bail-out-gate or whatever it is, seems to me a poor opportunity to bridge gaps and ask citizens to support an illegal activity. Or rather to accept "laws" that support illegal activity. That makes people sit up and say wtf? surer than anything else I can think of. If you want to balk at the term illegal, I can understand that. I can understand that there are conflicting ideals. I do however have a hard time accepting laws that are in conflict with the overall laws of the country regarding immigration.

I understand the need to act beneficent, but I am conflicted by the laws regarding the overall structure and implications of immigration, the needs of the personal stories, and my own needs. How does one weed through all of those conflicting ideals and laws?

Where is the large disconnect with some if not many American people with regards to immigration? Is it in the term illegal? Is it in the erosion of antiquated policies? Is it in the citizens of the country tired of handing out?
Is it the struggle of today's families trying to take care of their own?

I don't know. Probably a combination of all of them. Nobody wants to work hard and eke by and have to give handouts to people who are classified (at least in some sense) illegal. That makes people irate and contributes to divisiveness rather than unity. That leads me to believe that people are disregarding the laws of immigration, even if for good reason. That makes me feel like the laws need to be revamped, but it never will make me feel it is ok to disregard the immigration laws of the country.

.... Morally, it's very difficult for me to understand how someone can advocate for some kind of amnesty program for illegal immigrants currently in this country and oppose this decision. The two positions seem contradictory to me.

I understand why you feel that way, and I can't help but feel part of the reason was my inadequate posts.

I feel that immigration in this country is so out of control in so many ways, that it is in the best interest of everyone involved to wipe the slate clean and start anew. Find a meaningful way of regulating the influx of immigrants, so we can maintain a standard of living that will provide for future immigrants and the country at large. Find a way of achieving some type of equity or payback so that people are sick of giving handouts while they are struggling to survive. Teach people to fish as opposed to giving them fish.

I don't avow amnesty for the sake of amnesty. I think given the volume of immigrants and the myriad stories out there, it is near impossible to continue as we have and survive. The amnesty is just a way of starting over and realizing that most immigrants are escaping some form of persecution, war, or poverty. I don't suggest amnesty carte blanche, because there are more needy than we can deal with. It sucks to say, but we can't fit the world within our borders and survive. We just can't. We can do more and be more proficient at what we do, but there is a finite amount we can sustain.
And there is also the issue of safety. It boots nothing to open the borders and take in an influx of drug dealers and terrorists.

I want to help who we can, but I want it to be done fairly and with the citizens of this country in mind.

As long as that doesn't change, the problem will continue unabated regardless of whatever efforts we make here, be it amnesty or immigration enforcement or border walls.

I disagree. That sounds like a defeatist attitude. We have never put the needed resources into sustaining any type of immigration legislation. There is no way we could ever enforce any type of laws with the resources made available. I know we are particularly beset by our geography and melting pot society, but other countries have far better track records at regulating immigration than we do. We are overrun at the borders, but I believe we have the resources to do a better job at regulation than we have done. The country needs jobs and there is a need here.

I am not trying to be cold hearted here. I am trying to be practical and realize that we have regulations for a good reason, and one of those reasons in sustainability.

There are many people struggling to survive in this country today. How are we a better society if we have to pay more taxes to assist illegal aliens with college when many citizens of this country cannot afford to assist their own children? Do you not think that breeds discontent? It is in no way feasible to suggest to the citizens of this country to support illegal anything with tax dollars. Therefore the laws regarding immigration need to be changed or the laws need to be upheld more stringently. To suggest that this is the problem and there is nothing we can do about it, is what is at the heart of the matter. We can make changes and we can decide what is best for the country. Abetting illegal entry is not a solution imo. There would be much better cohesiveness in the country, if taxpayers believed they were helping legal entries as opposed to illegal entries.

It is easy enough to sit back and pass legislation helping indigent and needy people. How many legislators (beyond hiring illegal immigrants for low wages, which is another detrimental story in itself) take immigrants into their homes? How many people in this country are taking a first person solution to the problem?

Where is the hue and cry for the people of this country? You won't ever hear any, because this is the land of opportunity. We don't talk about the starving people in this country because most of us disregard them or think that we offer them an equitable amount of subsistence. The fact remains that people are also starving here. People, legal taxpaying citizens, are also struggling here.

Have we as a country even remotely addressed the issue as to why people are "illegal" here as opposed to legal?

I don't subscribe to deportation or amnesty only, but the path we are taking is far from the righteous or moral one. We are taking the lazy path. The I can't be bothered path. The I have all I can do for myself path. On both sides.

Rather than applying band-aid legislation after band-aid legislation that appeases no one in the end, maybe we should take on the issue at hand and decide as a country what is right for us as a country and as a people.

[Inanna]

Holby, that's a great post, and explains a lot.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Holby, thanks for explaining your position more fully and clearly. I hope to respond to some of the points you make at greater length when I get the chance, but I wanted to say right away that I appreciate the effort and thought that went into that post.

[nerdanel]

Here's an example of the type of undocumented student who benefits from in-state tuition in California:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 739.column

Looking forward to this one (likely) becoming a fellow member of the California bar by spring 2011.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals has upheld the District Court's decision enjoining the most draconian aspects of the Arizona law. Importantly, though the Ninth has a liberal reputation, the panel that upheld the decision had two Republican appointees, one of whom, Reagan appointee John Noonan, sided with the majority opinion (which was written by the Clinton appointee Richarch Paez). A partial dissent was authored by Bush appointee Carlos Bea. The opinion can be read here.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The SCOTUS has confirmed that it will hear oral arguments in this case on April 25, the final day of oral arguments in the term.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... TO20120203

[SirDennis]

Sigh

I wonder about the legality of this:



Mexican Cessation

And no, this is not an attempt to introduce a straw man, but the context of this question: Who's interests are served by borders?

For the average person, there is no such thing as home field advantage any more. Whether an "alien" is your next door neighbour or living in the country of their birth, we have all been put in the position where we see no choice but to fight amongst each other over jobs and resources.

Borders protect capital, nothing else. And border patrols are a diversion of public funds away from needs more pressing (go figure). As long as people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale continue to fight amongst each other, capital will prevail. The legality of immigration debate is just one more tool with which common people may destroy each other.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That might be worth discussing, but I don't see what it has to do with the specific subject of this thread.

[SirDennis]

Well going back to the beginning of the thread Holby posted this:

Kind of surprised this hasn't been discussed yet, though I may have missed it.

There is quite the debate raging over this and I think it comes down to two general points.

States doing something to protect themselves against illegal immigration because the feds are failing miserably at it, and the terrifying (and maybe unconstitutional) power the law gives to police.

The issue with illegal immigration has had a serious and debilitating affect on the country and border states are trying to do something about the toll it has been taking on them. I totally agree with that.

I totally disagree with stopping someone and asking for their birth certificate to confirm their citizenship.

I think both parties are equally to blame, but I think this is an opportunity for the Obama administration to act.

Secure the borders and tighten immigration laws. Grant amnesty to those who are illegal now and get a grip on this. A well known civil war was fought on the basis of state vs. fed rights.

Jobs are needed so stimulate the workforce and hire border patrols. Control the issue. Do more.

And before the GOP comes down on me for suggesting amnesty, the last president to do so was Reagan.

relevant bits bolded by me.


And Yov posted this:

[Is there any way at all...]...to defend Arizona's evil new immigration law? Is there anybody willing to play devil's advocate that can explain why anybody that isn't racist and hateful would support this bill??

(to those not in the know, Arizona recently passed a bill that allows police to demand ID from people they "suspect" are illegal immigrants, amongst other things.)

All I am suggesting is the debate rests on at least two (imho) faulty premises:

1. History is on our side: History does not support the sense of entitlement Arizona residents may feel in the face of pressure from Mexican immigrants.

2. Illegal immigrants are the real enemy to our livelihood: Arizona residents have more in common with so-called illegal aliens than the debate allows for. Both groups are being manipulated to fight each other rather than the common enemy, the bankrupt economic system foisted on us by the decision makers. Getting rid of immigrants, many of whom have simply returned to ancestral lands, will not solve the problem. Nor will building a very high, well patrolled wall. Nor will employing people to police the wall. Neither will using racial profiling to detain and search people inside the wall fix anything.

Perhaps I am too vague at times, or expect the same mental gymnastics I suffer with of my readers. If this sort of analysis is not useful or unwanted I would be happy to stop. Truth is I don't like talking about this kind of stuff either. But it is relevant, as long as the discussion continues.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Fair enough. I perhaps tend to focus too narrowly on the ongoing legal debate.

[SirDennis]

The legal debate, what I understand of it at least, is interesting in that it is a snap shot of the two solitudes of American politics. And there is something very wrong with the picture. On the one hand there is the issue of state autonomy to deal with a problem as it sees fit. Pitted against this, on the other hand, is a vision for the entire nation coming from the Feds. Seems a legitimate and common enough battle. However both sides seem more driven by competing ideologies -- ideologies that have nothing to do with either state autonomy nor a national vision via guided democracy.

I believe that on the Republican governor's part, the question of state autonomy is secondary to the battle between Republican and Democrat ideologies. The fact that, once again, a hot button issue reeking of hatred, stirring discord rather than consensus, has made it to the supreme court just in time for a very important federal election, is not, perhaps, surprising.

That no one seems to notice (or care) that real people on the ground (immigrant or otherwise) are left powerless to come up with a solution that makes sense for everyone is a bit surprising, and disheartening. (I thought this was the age of reason?) No matter what happens, wall or not, these people have to live with each other after all. Furthermore, how the ongoing health care debate is deemed rightly a part of all of this escapes my understanding completely.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The SCOTUS heard oral argument today on this law, with the same lawyers that argued the health care reform law arguing this case. Once again, former Solictor General Paul Clement got the better of current SG Donald Verrilli. But this time it did not appear to be a complete idealogical split. Most interesting is that Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice on the court, was one of Verrilli's strongest questioners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/us/co ... storm.html

[wishful thinking]Maybe the court will be satisfied with ruling against the admistration on this issue and let the Affordable Care Act stand[/wishful thinking]

[axordil]

I keep waiting for Clement to break into a round of "Molasses to Rum to Slaves" or something similar. He's like the evil genius-for-hire these days.