Immigration

[ulukinatme]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rb1enu21C3A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[kmoose]

Inslee signs order limiting Washington state’s help in enforcing Trump’s immigration policies (Seattle Times)

But the minute that the Skagit River overflows its banks, or the Wenatchee National Forest catches fire, and causes millions of dollars in damage; the Governor will be on the local news demanding that the Federal Government expend billions of dollars in resources to help his state out............. they are Americans, after all!!

 

[Legacy]

But the minute that the Skagit River overflows its banks, or the Wenatchee National Forest catches fire, and causes millions of dollars in damage; the Governor will be on the local news demanding that the Federal Government expend billions of dollars in resources to help his state out............. they are Americans, after all!!

...or suffer an act of terrorism or hate crime??

Just to clarify, you are in favor of the voluntary surrender of state records to the federal government on request without a warrant?

The Gov. noted the state universities. That ties in with previous posts about Texas and Indiana state legislatures, who are moving to pass laws that require all colleges and universities - public or private - to surrender these records when requested by the feds. Each state is now deciding this issue of providing records on request to the feds without a warrant and due to a Presidential executive order. Aren't you comfortable with that?

The Supreme Court did decide last year ( Utah v. Stieff) that an illegal search that discovered evidence of illegal activity or a criminal was legal (5-4). So, would you favor Wash state employees like the state police without a warrant pulling over a car full of Hispanics based on their ethnicity for the purpose of discoving if they were illegals and, if they cannot produce those documents, detain them for ICE? Are you comfortable with that?

Finally, do you think that Trump should prosecute the Gov for breaking his (Trump's) EO? Or just not providing federal assistance in disasters?

I imagine you are not, but thought you could clarify. Thanks

 

[kmoose]

Just to clarify, you are in favor of the voluntary surrender of state records to the federal government on request without a warrant?

The voluntary surrender, if the Feds make a good enough case that the information would be of benefit to them in enforcing the law? Sure. The fact that you clarified "voluntary" means that the State can always say no.

The Gov. noted the state universities. That ties in with previous posts about Texas and Indiana state legislatures, who are moving to pass laws that require all colleges and universities - public or private - to surrender these records when requested by the feds. Each state is now deciding this issue of providing records on request to the feds without a warrant and due to a Presidential executive order. Aren't you comfortable with that?

I'm ok with that. What I'm NOT ok with, is States blatantly creating rules just to make it harder for Federal authorities to do the job of protecting the country. And then openly stating that that is the purpose of the legislation; to obstruct Federal officials from doing their job.

The Supreme Court did decide last year ( Utah v. Stieff) that an illegal search that discovered evidence of illegal activity or a criminal was legal (5-4). So, would you favor Wash state employees like the state police without a warrant pulling over a car full of Hispanics based on their ethnicity for the purpose of discoving if they were illegals and, if they cannot produce those documents, detain them for ICE? Are you comfortable with that?

I would not be comfortable with police performing "Immigration Status" stops, no. Although I am ok with the blanket checkpoints like they use on Interstate 8, in So Cal and Arizona.

You're misrepresenting Utah v Strieff, by the way. The Supreme Court did not rule that an illegal search was legal. They ruled that evidence of a crime found during an illegal stop could be used in court, IF that evidence was uncovered AFTER the officer(s) ascertained that the subject had an outstanding arrest warrant. And yeah, I'm ok with that. If a cop performs an illegal stop, that's not good. But if he then determines that the driver has an arrest warrant, what are we supposed to do, demand that the officer let him go? NO. We want the guy arrested on the warrant. The subsequent search would then pertain to the arrest, not the stop. The alternative is demanding that an officer arrest someone, but not conduct a search of that person and/or their property.

Finally, do you think that Trump should prosecute the Gov for breaking his (Trump's) EO? Or just not providing federal assistance in disasters?

I'm not in favor of anyone prosecuting the Governor, although I don't know the legal factors surrounding EOs, in terms of the criminality of disregarding them. I'm not against providing federal assistance, either. I just find it incredibly hypocritical that this governor is going to "take a stand" against what might be a perfectly legal EO, as if he doesn't have to follow Federal Rules and Regulations. Yet, he will damn sure want everyone to know that Washington is part of the United States, if some catastrophic event takes place and they need emergency funds that they don't have at a State level. I would, however, probably favor requiring the State to pay back any Federal assistance rendered during the time.

 

[Legacy]

The only two points I would "disagree" with you, kmoose, is that perhaps my wording was wrong on Utah v Strieff, but meant exactly what you conveyed. SCOTUS did not rule on the legality of the search but the fruits of the search.

I just find it incredibly hypocritical that this governor is going to "take a stand" against what might be a perfectly legal EO, as if he doesn't have to follow Federal Rules and Regulations. Yet, he will damn sure want everyone to know that Washington is part of the United States, if some catastrophic event takes place and they need emergency funds that they don't have at a State level. I would, however, probably favor requiring the State to pay back any Federal assistance rendered during the time.

A number of points here. The President's EO is perfectly legal, I agree, but so is the Governor's since he made the exception of warrants. The issue, as I see it, is really how much Presidential EO's can supersede states' rights regardless of party. Also, taxpayers in Washington pay the federal government and have a right to receive the same assistance at the same level as other states. What would be more forceful is a law or resolution passed by their legislature.

I also wonder how religious groups who helped sponsor and settle many of these refugees will respond if the federal government demands their records. Could they claim to be exempt if Congress proceeds to reinforce religious liberties to refuse services as a matter of conscience? Would they use a similar approach as the Little Sisters of the Poor? Or do they acquiesce like Jenkins without defending religious liberty, private university arguments, and ill-defined future usage of the immigration data ND keeps on their DACA students?

 

[Legacy]

20 metro areas are home to six-in-ten unauthorized immigrants in U.S. (Pew Research)

Anyone want to research how they've increased crime and rape in those cities as Ann Coulter wrote?

 

[kmoose]

Also, taxpayers in Washington pay the federal government and have a right to receive the same assistance at the same level as other states.

I agree that they deserve the same help any other state would get. However, if they are going to play that card, then they also have the obligation to help Federal Immigration officials at the same level as other states. That is my whole argument: You can't say "We're special, because we don't agree with your politics, so we aren't going to follow the law and turn information over to Federal officials", and then turn around and say, "HEY! You have to treat us just like everyone else!" when it comes to Federal Assistance. You either are special, and you can be treated differently than everyone else, or you are NOT special, and you have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

To your point about religion: I don't think that's an apples and apples comparison. One organization is tax exempt because of it's charitable status, and has to follow the same rules for assisting law enforcement as any other private organization. The other is an entirely public-funded entity.

 

[Guest]

Black Trump Supporter Unloads on Hypocrisy of ‘Sanctuary Cities’

Black Trump Supporter Unloads on Hypocrisy of ‘Sanctuary Cities’

title belongs to author, not me

‘When My People Do a Crime, We Get 3 Strikes’: Black Trump Supporter Unloads on Hypocrisy of ‘Sanctuary Cities’ (VIDEO) – Liberty News

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/embed/103831" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Legacy]

Kicking out immigrants doesn’t raise wages (The Economist)

Why deporting undocumented immigrants could slow US economy (CNBC)

 

[wizards8507]

Kicking out immigrants doesn’t raise wages (The Economist)

Why deporting undocumented immigrants could slow US economy (CNBC)

I haven't had time to read the articles, but I agree with the headlines. "Illegals took my job" is more or less a political red herring. That doesn't mean we shouldn't secure the border. But the national security implications are much greater than the economic ones.

 

[Legacy]

Case Western Reserve Law Review
Volume 66 | Issue 4

2016 Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture: Of Lions
and Bears, Judges and Legislators, and the Legacy of
Justice Scalia
Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch

Excerpt:

To the founders, the legislative and judicial powers were distinct by
nature and their separation was among the most important liberty-
protecting devices of the constitutional design, an independent right of
the people essential to the preservation of all other rights later enumer-
ated in the Constitution and its amendments.30 Though much could be
said on this subject, tonight permit me to suggest a few reasons why
recognizing, defending, and yes policing, the legislative-judicial divide
is critical to preserving other constitutional values like due process,
equal protection, and the guarantee of a republican form of government.

Consider if we allowed the legislator to judge. If legislatures were
free to act as courts and impose their decisions retroactively, they would
be free to punish individuals for completed conduct they’re unable to
alter. And to do so without affording affected individuals any of the
procedural protections that normally attend the judicial process. Rais-
ing along the way serious due process questions: after all, how would a
citizen ever have fair notice of the law or be able to order his or her
affairs around it if the lawmaker could go back in time and outlaw
retroactively what was reasonably thought lawful at the time?31 With
due process concerns like these would come equal protection problems,
too. If legislators could routinely act retroactively, what would happen
to disfavored groups and individuals? With their past actions known
and unalterable, they would seem easy targets for discrimination. No
doubt worries like these are exactly why the founders were so emphatic
that legislation should generally bear only prospective effect—proscrib-
ing bills of attainder and ex post facto laws criminalizing completed
conduct32—and why baked into the “legislative Power” there’s a pre-
sumption as old as the common law that all legislation, whether crim-
inal or civil, touches only future, not past, conduct.33
30. See The Federalist No. 47 (James Madison); The Federalist Nos. 79,

Now consider the converse situation, if we allowed the judge to act
like a legislator. Unconstrained by the bicameralism and presentment
hurdles of Article I, the judge would need only his own vote, or those
of just a few colleagues, to revise the law willy-nilly in accordance with
his preferences and the task of legislating would become a relatively
simple thing.34 Notice, too, how hard it would be to revise this so-easily-
made judicial legislation to account for changes in the world or to fix
mistakes. Unable to throw judges out of office in regular elections, you’d
have to wait for them to die before you’d have any chance of change.
And even then you’d find change difficult, for courts cannot so easily
undo their errors given the weight they afford precedent.35 Notice finally
how little voice the people would be left in a government where life-
appointed judges are free to legislate alongside elected representatives.
The very idea of self-government would seem to wither to the point of
pointlessness. Indeed, it seems that for reasons just like these Hamilton
explained that “liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary
alone,” but that it “ha every thing to fear from [the] union” of the
judicial and legislative powers.36 Blackstone painted an even grimmer picture of a world in which judges were free to legislate, suggesting that there “men would be[come] slaves to their magistrates.”37

In case you think the founders’ faith in the liberty-protecting
qualities of the separation of powers is too ancient to be taken seriously,
let me share with you the story of Alfonzo De Niz Robles.38 Mr. De Niz
Robles is a Mexican citizen, married to a U.S. citizen, and the father of
four U.S. citizens. In 1999, he agreed to depart the country after being
apprehended by immigration authorities. For two years his wife tried
without luck to secure him a spousal visa. At that point, Mr. De Niz
Robles decided to return to the United States and try his own luck at
applying for lawful residency. In doing so, though, he faced two compet-
ing statutory provisions that confused his path. One appeared to require
him to stay outside the country for at least a decade before applying
for admission because of his previous unlawful entry.39 Another seemed
to suggest the Attorney General could overlook this past transgression
and adjust his residency status immediately.40 In 2005, my colleagues
took up the question how to reconcile these two apparently competing
directions. In the end, the Tenth Circuit held that the latter provision
controlled and the Attorney General’s adjustment authority remained
intact.41 And it was precisely in reliance on this favorable judicial inter-
pretation that Mr. De Niz Robles filed his application for relief.

But then a curious thing happened. The Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) issued a ruling that purported to disagree with and may-
be even overrule our 2005 decision, one holding that immigrants like
Mr. De Niz Robles cannot apply for an immediate adjustment of status
and must instead always satisfy the ten-year waiting period.42 In sup-
port of its view on this score, the BIA argued that the statutory scheme
was ambiguous, that under Chevron step 2 it enjoyed the right to
exercise its own “delegated legislative judgment,” that as a matter of
policy it preferred a different approach, and that it could enforce its
new policy retroactively to individuals like Mr. De Niz Robles.43 So that,
quite literally, an executive agency acting in a faux-judicial proceeding
and exercising delegated legislative authority purported to overrule an
existing judicial declaration about the meaning of existing law and
apply its new legislative rule retroactively to already completed con-
duct. Just describing what happened here might be enough to make
James Madison’s head spin.

What did all this mixing of what should be separated powers mean
for due process and equal protection values? After our decision in 2005,
Mr. De Niz Robles thought the law gave him a choice: begin a ten-year
waiting period outside the country or apply for relief immediately. In
reliance on a judicial declaration of the law as it was, he unsurprisingly
chose the latter option. Then when it turned to his case in 2014, the
BIA ruled that that option was no option at all.44 Telling him, in essen-
ce, that he’d have to start the decade-long clock now—even though if
he’d known back in 2005 that this was his only option, his wait would
be almost over. So it is that, after a man relied on a judicial declaration
of what the law was, an agency in an adjudicatory proceeding sought
to make a legislative policy decision with retroactive effect, in full view
of and able to single out winners and losers, penalizing an individual
for conduct he couldn’t alter, and denying him any chance to conform
his conduct to a legal rule knowable in advance.

What does this story suggest? That combining what are by design
supposed to be separate and distinct legislative and judicial powers
poses a grave threat to our values of personal liberty, fair notice, and
equal protection. And that the problem isn’t just one of King George’s
time but one that persists even today, during the reign of King James
(Lebron, that is).45

Another immigration case, (majority decision by Neil Gorsuch)
Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016).

 

[drayer54]

Case Western Reserve Law Review
Volume 66 | Issue 4

2016 Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture: Of Lions
and Bears, Judges and Legislators, and the Legacy of
Justice Scalia
Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch

Excerpt:


Another immigration case, (majority decision by Neil Gorsuch)
Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016).

Ahhhh, this is the kind of post I can wake up to!

+1

It scares me that the concepts of freedom that our country was founded upon are being considered ancient by many who wish to redefine society to their liking.

 

[dshans]

It scares me that the concepts of freedom that our country was founded upon are being considered ancient by many who wish to redefine society to their liking.

And where are all the "original intent" and "strict constructionists" when you really need them?




If you can't discern the biting sarcasm sans italics – get bent!

 

[Legacy]

Census shows: Alabama stagnant without immigrants (al.com)

 

[Legacy]

Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035 (Pew Research)

 

[Ndaccountant]

Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035 (Pew Research)

This has been discussed before to great extent. The US, and Europe, both need immigration due to birth rates and death. It isn't a question of IF we should have it, but how.

 

[kmoose]

Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035 (Pew Research)

So............ "secure the border" = "lower unemployment"! A win-win!

 

[phgreek]

This has been discussed before to great extent. The US, and Europe, both need immigration due to birth rates and death. It isn't a question of IF we should have it, but how.

exactly...right now we are largely inundated with people who can do the jobs that are essentially evaporating...as has been well covered on IE. W/O some selective processes, we do little to help unemployment and dependence. Not saying there isn't a place for some laborers. Am saying they can't all be low-no skilled people if the argument is we need working aged people. They need to be lined up with the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the jobs we have, or will have...that is NOT happening now, and status quo certainly won't resolve that issue.

 

[zelezo vlk]

You're right, Americans aren't having enough kids. Gentlemen, get to it

 

[Buster Bluth]

exactly...right now we are largely inundated with people who can do the jobs that are essentially evaporating...as has been well covered on IE. W/O some selective processes, we do little to help unemployment and dependence. Not saying there isn't a place for some laborers. Am saying they can't all be low-no skilled people if the argument is we need working aged people. They need to be lined up with the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the jobs we have, or will have...that is NOT happening now, and status quo certainly won't resolve that issue.

I don't think you have data to back that up.

Legal immigrants are usually not low-skill. And their entrepreneurial spirit is demonstrably greater than the native-born American average, as they start businesses at a far greater rate. Their economic benefit more than makes up for the cost of legal immigrant programs.

On the illegal front, Illegal immigrants are generally not eligible for welfare. Nor arr they legal permanent residents. Their presence here ultimately responds to the market. When the jobs dry up, they don't work and they go back to Mexico--which is what has been happening for the last decade since the market plummeted in 2007-2009. The modest rise in illegal immigrant numbers, maybe 200k over a decade, aren't from Mexico.

 

[phgreek]

I don't think you have data to back that up.

Legal immigrants are usually not low-skill. And their entrepreneurial spirit is demonstrably greater than the native-born American average, as they start businesses at a far greater rate. Their economic benefit more than makes up for the cost of legal immigrant programs.

On the illegal front, Illegal immigrants are generally not eligible for welfare. Nor arr they legal permanent residents. Their presence here ultimately responds to the market. When the jobs dry up, they don't work and they go back to Mexico--which is what has been happening for the last decade since the market plummeted in 2007-2009. The modest rise in illegal immigrant numbers, maybe 200k over a decade, aren't from Mexico.

I was talking about illegals...based on your own data they are demonstrably low skilled. As well it is disingenuous to ignore children of immigrants who DO receive aid...and even if you attribute the same percentage rate of welfare fraud as is perpetrated by citizens to the illegal population, that is money worth having...so this idea that no new illegals means it isn't a problem is just not something I am willing to cede...and I really don't GAF where they come from.

Edit: as for employment...seriously, how many illegals are skilled. They didn't all go home, which means the non-skilled job pool, shrinking as it is, makes it harder to have illegals here...you make it sound as if they've all gone home.

 

[Wild Bill]

This has been discussed before to great extent. The US, and Europe, both need immigration due to birth rates and death. It isn't a question of IF we should have it, but how.

We're continually told the same by the so-called experts but Japan faces even worse birth rates than western countries yet they refuse to transform their own country/culture via immigration in exchange for an economic boost.

Japan, in spite of their refusal to embrace western open border immigration policies, is a modern country that provides its citizens economic opportunities, safety, stability and has remained a very unified country.

Nothing stops the west from doing the same.

 

[Ndaccountant]

We're continually told the same by the so-called experts but Japan faces even worse birth rates than western countries yet they refuse to transform their own country/culture via immigration in exchange for an economic boost.

Japan, in spite of their refusal to embrace western open border immigration policies, is a modern country that provides its citizens economic opportunities, safety, stability and has remained a very unified country.

Nothing stops the west from doing the same.

I think most agree that the US has a growing debt problem. Not sure how then to describe Japan......

 

[Wild Bill]

I think most agree that the US has a growing debt problem. Not sure how then to describe Japan......

Based on their immigration policies, we'll be describing it as Japanese for the foreseeable future.

I understand they have unresolved economic problems, but they are not willing to gamble on the safety of their citizens or the future of their culture/country on the idea that mass immigration will be the answer to their economic problems.

They seem more interested in fixing their own economic and low birth issues with their own citizens - provide incentives to increase native birth rates and use automation to replace a dying workforce. That strikes me as more reasonable than mass immigration.

We can grab beers in thirty years and talk about how this one played out.

 

[dshans]

Wild Bill: "We can grab beers in thirty years and talk about how this one played out."

Family medical history and genetics lead me to believe that I won't be around for the party.

Who would want to deal with an even crankier 94 year old dshans, anyway?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WzC_koWckdY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[phgreek]

Wild Bill: "We can grab beers in thirty years and talk about how this one played out."

Family medical history and genetics lead me to believe that I won't be around for the party.

Who would want to deal with an even crankier 94 year old dshans, anyway?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WzC_koWckdY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I would...aren't you in Florida?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Based on their immigration policies, we'll be describing it as Japanese for the foreseeable future.

I understand they have unresolved economic problems, but they are not willing to gamble on the safety of their citizens or the future of their culture/country on the idea that mass immigration will be the answer to their economic problems.

They seem more interested in fixing their own economic and low birth issues with their own citizens - provide incentives to increase native birth rates and use automation to replace a dying workforce. That strikes me as more reasonable than mass immigration.

What are they doing? And how is it working? No one has a politically feasible plan to reverse these demographic trends.

We can grab beers in thirty years and talk about how this one played out.

Not sure we can afford to just ride out our current policies that long. Things can go downhill in a hurry.

 

[zelezo vlk]

What are they doing? And how is it working? No one has a politically feasible plan to reverse these demographic trends.



Not sure we can afford to just ride out our current policies that long. Things can go downhill in a hurry.

My solution: live saintly lives as laymen. People are attracted to beauty.

 

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill: "We can grab beers in thirty years and talk about how this one played out."

Family medical history and genetics lead me to believe that I won't be around for the party.

Who would want to deal with an even crankier 94 year old dshans, anyway?

I'd drop everything and run to have one more beer with my grandfather. I'm sure your children or grandchildren would do the same.

What are they doing? And how is it working? No one has a politically feasible plan to reverse these demographic trends.

Completely eliminate anime porn.


Same old shit from what I can tell - provide tax incentives for having children and lower tax burdens. They've entertained ideas that would increase urban sprawl to lower rent and increase living space, both would presumably ease the costs of having children. Subsidizing child care was discussed as well.

Not sure we can afford to just ride out our current policies that long. Things can go downhill in a hurry.

It's more than just a policy change at this point. Of course, policies must be changed that encourage an increased birth rate but there must be a cultural change as well.

Policies:
Lower tax rates for families with children.
I'd be open to tax credits for families as well but would prefer a rate reduction over a credit.

Culture:
Value families
Value motherhood
Value community.

Off the top of my head, I would say these three are key to a cultural that promotes a higher birth rate. No clue how you'd pull this off with the current culture.

Birth control and abortion are clearly negatively impacting birth rates. You've done a fine job of persuading me on these issues, counselor, so I'll leave those arguments to you.

 

[BGIF]

Wild Bill: "We can grab beers in thirty years and talk about how this one played out."

Family medical history and genetics lead me to believe that I won't be around for the party.

Who would want to deal with an even crankier 94 year old dshans, anyway?

...

Hell, who in their right (or left) mind would want to spend an afternoon with dshans drinking beer now?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u4D0yx4DvBk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>