DOJ: Arizona Immigration Law Must Be 'Struck Down'

[Don]

I want to see the legal status set for those who want to be here legally first. Those who don't participate in what is offered or disregard it after this has been set in place should not be employed and the way to stop people from coming here illegally is to hit employers so hard is they hire them that none but the most brazen of employer toward the law would attempt to do so. No jobs for illegal immigrants = very, very few illegal immigrants. Also, we do not have the money and manpower to arrest and deport 12 million illegal immigrants so we have to take care of their legal status first and reduce that number down to a managaeable level for federal law enforcement.

Folks, Ken may be on to something.

What I'm not seeing addressed is the economic situation that's going to be caused by legalizing all those that are already here.

As soon as they are declared legal U.S. citizens, they immediately are due the same rights and privileges -- which includes the legal U.S. minimum wage.

As soon as employers have to start paying the legal minimum wage, plus figuring taxes, Medicare, social security, etc., their "need" for those workers will dramatically decrease.

As soon as employers start dismissing workers because they can no longer afford them, the illegal aliens will have to go elsewhere.

And if -- I say, if -- we crack down on the employers that make it tempting to work in the U.S. because of "under the table" payments, etc.; if we actually enforce or more strongly enforce immigration laws on those businesses, individuals, etc. who are hiring illegal aliens, then we dry up the source that causes the illegal aliens to come here in the first place.

I support Arizona's law, and its right to defend its citizens. But the problem isn't as simple as just shutting down the border.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It may be better economically to legalize millions of mexicans than to kick them out. If you legalize them taxes are assessed for the income they earned however, produce prices will increase on the other hand they provide a buffer for the working generation having to shoulder the social security of the baby boomers by themselves. Where as if you kick them all out. You just have an incread in all grocery products to include everything from vegitables to fruit to dairy to meats etc... Construction cost will also go up. So inflation verse inflation but buffer on social security.

 

[KenH]

A disingenuous question. Everyone knows that if you cut off all means of money and support they will go back home on their own. Even those who have children born here.

Then just go after the employers alone and that will take of it if you are correct.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Then just go after the employers alone and that will take of it if you are correct.

That will take care of the majority of the problem. If no one is hiring them then no incentive to work here. Next thing to do is deal with the drug trade and the illegal human trading going on as well and that will take care of just about all of it.

 

[exscentric]

" No jobs for illegal immigrants = very, very few illegal immigrants."

OR

No jobs for illegal PEOPLE = very, very many illegal PEOPLE on welfare.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

" No jobs for illegal immigrants = very, very few illegal immigrants."

OR

No jobs for illegal PEOPLE = very, very many illegal PEOPLE on welfare.

The latter is a non sequitur. To obtain welfare benefits you need to prove citizenship. I know because I used to work for the Department of Public Welfare many moons ago.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Folks, Ken may be on to something.

What I'm not seeing addressed is the economic situation that's going to be caused by legalizing all those that are already here.

As soon as they are declared legal U.S. citizens, they immediately are due the same rights and privileges -- which includes the legal U.S. minimum wage.

As soon as employers have to start paying the legal minimum wage, plus figuring taxes, Medicare, social security, etc., their "need" for those workers will dramatically decrease.

As soon as employers start dismissing workers because they can no longer afford them, the illegal aliens will have to go elsewhere.

And if -- I say, if -- we crack down on the employers that make it tempting to work in the U.S. because of "under the table" payments, etc.; if we actually enforce or more strongly enforce immigration laws on those businesses, individuals, etc. who are hiring illegal aliens, then we dry up the source that causes the illegal aliens to come here in the first place.

I support Arizona's law, and its right to defend its citizens. But the problem isn't as simple as just shutting down the border.

What I meant by "under the table" was not necessarily business owners paying "UTT", but people who are not legal citizens who get work as painters, landscapers, etc., and run their businesses "UTT".

And I do not know how they do it but I know there are folks here illegally who get government assistance- food stamps, etc. if not "welfare" per se.

 

[Jedi Knight]

So Obama should wave his Magic Scepter and millions will be legal. So the reward for lawlessness is........Welcome to America!

 

[Revmitchell]

Then just go after the employers alone and that will take of it if you are correct.

And those who are involved in other illegal activities.

 

[billreber]

A question for those who oppose Arizona's law -- Why not also sue Rhode Island, which has a law almost identical to the one in Arizona, but has been using it for years? I heard about this today on the radio, and wonder why the lawsuit by the Obama administration DOES NOT also sue other places, but just Arizona. Could it be that Arizona has a Republican governor? Could it be that there are a lot of ILLEGALs in Arizona that Obama wants "legalized" so they can vote for Dems this fall? God only knows!

I also heard that, using the lawsuit's own arguments, so-called "sanctuary cities" should also be sued, since they are refusing to abide by the laws the Feds have established. The argument is that Federal law supercedes state and local laws. (Seattle WA is one of these sanctuary cities, and I think San Francisco is too! I heard that 52 cities have made such declarations). If that is true for Arizona (which mirrors Federal law), then it should also apply to cities and states that refuse to turn ILLEGALs over to the Feds.

What say you? You can't have it both ways!

(This brings an unrelated thought to mind -- why have there been no lawsuits filed against states/places that have legalized marijuana, which is against Federal law? I know, off-topic. Anyone want to start a separate thread about this one? I don't!)

Bill :godisgood:

 

[Dragoon68]

And where is the manpower and funding tomcome from to carry out your plan on 12 million people?

From the same taxpayers that have been and will otherwise continue to pay for the consequences of having millions of illegal aliens in our country. Laws need to be enforced or their is no law.

Think about the many people who have come here legally and others waiting to come here legally - meaning they followed to law - and how they feel about letting others come without following the same process.

Wake up and look at what's happening - are you that blind to it - and get on board to really fixing the problem instead of saying it's too big to fix or it's this problem or that problem. The future of our nation depends upon it.

 

[Dragoon68]

Then just go after the employers alone and that will take of it if you are correct.

Go after both the supply and the demand - cut them both off - get aggressive about it. Make the law mean what it says!

 

[KenH]

I have already offered my idea for solving this problem permanently.

I don't expect the government to solve this problem. The Democrats wants the votes of Hispanics and the Republicans want the cheap labor for there business contributors. All that will happen are these silly laws such as Arizona's that will end up being struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. They probably know when these are passed and signed that they will be struck down(and that is what I think they really want and expect) but it gives the appearance that they are "doing something" and appeals to one element of the electorate to try to get their votes.

 

[Dragoon68]

I have already offered my idea for solving this problem permanently.

I don't expect the government to solve this problem. The Democrats wants the votes of Hispanics and the Republicans want the cheap labor for there business contributors. All that will happen are these silly laws such as Arizona's that will end up being struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. They probably know when these are passed and signed that they will be struck down(and that is what I think they really want and expect) but it gives the appearance that they are "doing something" and appeals to one element of the electorate to try to get their votes.

That is a very pessimistic view of Arizona's courageous efforts to actually do something within their power and rights to do towards making at least a dent in the problem. What you're offering is to shut that down and claim nothing can be done or should be done by the States to actually help enforce the federal laws. That's not a solution - that's part of the problem. People don't want to do what has to be done any more - they just try to wish the problem away or pass the buck off on someone else. It's just plain pitiful!

 

[KenH]

That is a very pessimistic view

Having watched politics in this country for many decades it is a realistic view.

 

[Dragoon68]

Having watched politics in this country for many decades it is a realistic view.

Yes, there's plenty of it these days, but when something positive happens - like Arizona making a stab at the problem - we ought to express support for it - not some unmerited criticism that doesn't do anything but give support to those that really don't want to do anything about the problem. Remember, Obama's just talking about "comprehensive immigration reform" which translated means let me convert these illegal aliens into a new army of voters that will assure me and my friend a future power base.

 

[KenH]

Yes, there's plenty of it these days, but when something positive happens

I consider it to be unconstitutional, not positive.

I have enjoyed the civility of the discussion in this thread. :thumbs:

 

[carpro]

Go after both the supply and the demand - cut them both off - get aggressive about it. Make the law mean what it says!

Can't go after employers who are not allowed access to a government database to check for phony SS #s. They can't spot the phonies because the government won't let them.

And the SS administration won't notify them when the name doesn't match the number. They want to keep the FICA collected and keep it cominmg, even if it comes from an illegal.

Neither party wants to address this problem.

 

[Don]

All that will happen are these silly laws such as Arizona's that will end up being struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ken, I don't think it will be. Granted, it's going to be some time before it reaches the Supreme Court...but I think Holder has filed using the wrong element (meaning, stating that Arizona is infringing on federal executive responsibility, as opposed to congressional responsibility).

Of course, I may be reading the federal government's complaint incorrectly.

It won't surprise me that much if I'm wrong, but....

 

[targus]

...but I think Holder has filed using the wrong element (meaning, stating that Arizona is infringing on federal executive responsibility, as opposed to congressional responsibility).

Even if the Feds win in court this may come back to bite them.

The suit says that it is the responsibility of the government - but the government isn't living up to the responsibility.

This lawsuit will serve to highlight that fact even more.