The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[twa]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

Just so we are clear, no sanctuary city is violating Federal law. 

 

Oh really?

 8 USC section 1324 "deals with those persons who knowingly conceal, harbor, or shield undocumented aliens and could apply to officials in sanctuary cities and states."

 

the law forbids the individual but not the local govt?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[bearrock]

55 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Oh really?

 8 USC section 1324 "deals with those persons who knowingly conceal, harbor, or shield undocumented aliens and could apply to officials in sanctuary cities and states."

 

the law forbids the individual but not the local govt?

 

With regards to individuals acting in their official capacity, 8 USC 1324 neither forbids the local officials nor local govenrment from refusing to enforce a Federal immigration program.  You, the eternal champion of state's rights, would be happy to know that the well established anti-commandeering doctrine forbids Fed goverment from commanding state and local officials to carry out or enforce a Federal regulatory program.  Precisely why Federal-local cooperation under INA was made voluntary, lest it be struck down as unconstitutional.  So, no, despite what many uninformed bloggers may hammer away on their keyboard, Feds can't use 8 USC1324 to scare those hippie sanctuary city mayors into deputizing the local police force to become part time ICE agents.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

Oh really?

 8 USC section 1324 "deals with those persons who knowingly conceal, harbor, or shield undocumented aliens and could apply to officials in sanctuary cities and states."

 

the law forbids the individual but not the local govt?

 

Now if only said law contained the phrase "or fail to detain for us". 

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

2 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

Now, I've got to say that I've been leery for some time of the continuous calls from lots of big businesses that we need huge increases in our H-1B numbers.  I just can't get away from being convinced that most of such immigration is being pushed by businesses, because they want to drive down the price of labor.  

 

Although, I also note that the legislation discussed in the article doesn't address that.  All it does is greatly reduce the numbers of legal immigration by family members of Americans.  I don;t really see a reason for restricting that kind of immigration, other than xenophobia or some such.  

[twa]

6 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

With regards to individuals acting in their official capacity, 8 USC 1324 neither forbids the local officials nor local govenrment from refusing to enforce a Federal immigration program.  You, the eternal champion of state's rights, would be happy to know that the well established anti-commandeering doctrine forbids Fed goverment from commanding state and local officials to carry out or enforce a Federal regulatory program.  Precisely why Federal-local cooperation under INA was made voluntary, lest it be struck down as unconstitutional.  So, no, despite what many uninformed bloggers may hammer away on their keyboard, Feds can't use 8 USC1324 to scare those hippie sanctuary city mayors into deputizing the local police force to become part time ICE agents.

 

there is a difference between commandeering and subverting federal law

and between deputizing and denying funds

 

 

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, twa said:

 

there is a difference between commandeering and subverting federal law

and between deputizing and denying funds

 

 

 

And between golf and Star Trek.  

 

But since we we're not discussing commandeering or subverting federal law, any more than we were discussing golf or Star Trek, and no one attempted to claim that deputizing and denying funds were the same thing, your attempt to throw around some phrases and hope some suckers think you said something is kinda wasted.  

 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Now, I've got to say that I've been leery for some time of the continuous calls from lots of big businesses that we need huge increases in our H-1B numbers.  I just can't get away from being convinced that most of such immigration is being pushed by businesses, because they want to drive down the price of labor.  

 

Although, I also note that the legislation discussed in the article doesn't address that.  All it does is greatly reduce the numbers of legal immigration by family members of Americans.  I don;t really see a reason for restricting that kind of immigration, other than xenophobia or some such.  

 

The problem is today for many jobs labor is not competing locally or nationally.  It really is competing internationally (and I'll point out that this isn't exactly new.  US auto workers realistically have been competing against labor in Japan, and then Korea and Mexico for decades, but it is more drastic today for jobs where the work product can be transported electronically).  

 

So for many jobs the question becomes, would you rather have people in the US competing against other people in the US or have them competing against people in India?

 

Especially if those people are likely to start businesses in the future.

 

(I'm not saying that businesses aren't looking out for themselves.  For US businesses, the best thing is clearly good/cheap labor in the US (there are costs beyond labor for out sourcing jobs).  Think of it this way, long term what would have been better for the US:

 

1.  Bring hard working Japanese citizens to the US in the early 1970s and driving up labor costs and down productivity in Japan (if you are taking the best workers out Japan then presumably you are hurting the productivity in Japan) making the growth of the Japanese car industry harder and less likely (and yes likely you would have driven up the US labor supply and wages).

 

2.  Or what happened where now several of the leading car manufacturers in the world are now Japanese and that a lot of the management and associated created investing class is Japanese.

 

I think you can argue #1 might have been better.  

 

(Though things get even more complex if you start to consider that an economically successful and stable Japan are good for us.  If you are do, #1 You are hurting the Japanese economy.  That's where China gets to be a real interesting situation and partly that depends on how you view China.  If you say China is an adversary, then removing important people for their future economic growth might be good, but having those same people in China might influence Chinese policy in a positive way.

 

But then I might view India different.  I might conclude that a robust H-1B visa program that targets China is good, but one that targets India is bad because how I view our relationship to India and China.)

Edited February 7, 2017 by PeterMP

[twa]

Try shielding and harboring.

and inaction vs proactive.

[bearrock]

10 minutes ago, twa said:

 

there is a difference between commandeering and subverting federal law

and between deputizing and denying funds

 

 

 

Just merely pointing out that sanctuary localities are not in violation of any law and 8 USC 1324 would not apply to neither local officials or local municipalities due to the anti-commandeering doctrine (of course municipalities could not be in violation criminal statutes anyway).

 

Ordinarily, Feds can use the power of the purse to, ahem, "strongly encourage" certain choices, but the contours of that power is somewhat in flux after the Independent Business case (medicaid expansion).  A passage from the Justice Robert's opinion that many state rights supporters take a liking to:

 

Quote

The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power “thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’ ” Pennhurst, supra, at 17. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system. That system “rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’ ” Bond, 564 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999) ). For this reason, “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.” New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.

 

Thus, Feds couldn't take away already existing medicaid grant.  Now, this opinion only drew 3 Justices, but expansion as passed was struck down because 4 other Justices wanted to strike down the entire ACA.  But certainly a hint as to where some members of the Court may go in the future with regards to state rights and overly coercive exercise of spending power interplay with existing funding. 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, twa said:

Try shielding and harboring.

 

And the only discussion of those things, was you falsely trying to apply them to what's being discussed.  

 

Unfortunately, the topic being discussed was whether the federal government has the power to compel local governments to spend their money doing something (enforcing federal law) which said governments actually lack the authority to do, even if they wanted to.  

[twa]

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Just merely pointing out that sanctuary localities are not in violation of any law and 8 USC 1324 would not apply to neither local officials or local municipalities due to the anti-commandeering doctrine (of course municipalities could not be in violation criminal statutes anyway).

 

Ordinarily, Feds can use the power of the purse to, ahem, "strongly encourage" certain choices, but the contours of that power is somewhat in flux after the Independent Business case (medicaid expansion).  A passage from the Justice Robert's opinion that many state rights supporters take a liking to:

 

 

 

 

Actions vs inaction factor in , what is a conspiracy to commit a crime?

 

Yes the business case could complicate it, but the existing funding was directed by law correct?

[bearrock]

Just now, twa said:

 

Actions vs inaction factor in , what is a conspiracy to commit a crime?

 

Yes the business case could complicate it, but the existing funding was directed by law correct?

For allocated medicaid spending?  Yes, by law.  

 

If any US attorney really wanted to make a name for themselves by pursuing section 1324 charges, they would run into a host of problems aside from the constitutional dimension, such as void for vagueness as applied to municipal agents and lex specialis (INA specifically provides that municipalities have the option of entering into an agreement with DHS and is not required).

[twa]

There are certainly obstacles to using 1324, some of which could be rectified.

 

What do you think the chances of stripping immunity from civil suits from those public officials actively harboring/shielding is?

Combine with continued publishing of crimes committed by those shielded and costs entailed?

And of course legal costs to defend by the cities

 

Drip,Drip,Drip.

 

States rights and secession ...shrink the feds.  

 

[twa]

thread needs more humor

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2017 by visionary

[visionary]

 

[Weganator]

1 hour ago, twa said:

thread needs more humor

You can't, Mexico has strong voter id laws.

 

http://www.snopes.com/mexico-voter-id/

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[skinny21]

Regarding the current vetting, some interesting things I heard:

 

Syrians are among the best documented (surprising) 

Vetters go through the social media of prospects (among many, many other things)

If an interviewer (after extensive interviews) has any concerns or even questions about the interviewee, even if there's nothing concrete, will deny them entry

They do biometric scans

The department that handles the vetting had no contact from the WH about the vetting process prior to the EO.  

 

[FanboyOf91]

not good for the Trump administration's case

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by visionary

[Corcaigh]

3 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Regarding the current vetting, some interesting things I heard:

 

Syrians are among the best documented (surprising) 

Vetters go through the social media of prospects (among many, many other things)

If an interviewer (after extensive interviews) has any concerns or even questions about the interviewee, even if there's nothing concrete, will deny them entry

They do biometric scans

The department that handles the vetting had no contact from the WH about the vetting process prior to the EO.  

 

 

 

As an immigrant I've long-joked with my American-born friends that half of them wouldn't get through the background checks we had to pass.

 

I had many unpleasant conversations with CBP coming through immigration when I was a non-resident. One of my least favorite moments was when the agent, sitting behind his protective glass screen, asked me to attest that my five-year old daughter had never been a prostitute. Yes, that is one of the questions on the visa waiver form.