West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

1. DBP
   Member Profile

   Newt Gingrich says there are times when the President can ignore a Supreme Court ruling and that "balance of power" means any two branches of government may collude to trump the third.

   He cites some interesting precedents.

   http://tinyurl.com/when-to-obey-the-law

   Posted 5 months ago #         

2. kootchman
   Member Profile

   In the words of the famous Andrew Jackson.... founder of the modern Democratic Party and the symbol of the "jackass" as the party banner... when the Supreme Court ruled that the forced transfer of the Cherokees from Georgia to Oklahoma territories was unconstitutional and usurped federal power..(trail of tears) he famous reply... ""John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."" And the march began much to our national disgrace. There is precedent.. Obama refuses to enforce US Immigration Laws enacted by Congress... it's a Democratic tradition to scoff at the separation of powers and constitutional authority. Newt is going Democrat on us...boo, hiss!

   Posted 5 months ago #         

3. DBP
   Member Profile

   At the risk of hi-jacking my own thread . . .

   Did you know that the rate of deportations has actually been much higher under President Obama than it was under GW Bush?

   http://tinyurl.com/deportations-soar-under-obama

   Obama has said he wants an immigration reform bill that would result in fewer deportations. But until such time as the current law is changed, he's doing a better job of enforcing it than his Republican predecessor.

   **************************************************************************************

   FYI: The recent immigration flap in Arizona wasn't about WHETHER immigration law will be enforced; it was about WHO will be doing the enforcing. Personally, I'm comfortable with the Feds handling that.

   **************************************************************************************

   FWIW: Andrew Jackson may have been famous, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time!

   OF ALL TIME!

   Posted 5 months ago #         

4. kootchman
   Member Profile

   Well, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, certainly don't agree. The say they are being overrun and the stats show it. Those governments are the ones that have to come up with the dollars to educate, provide health care, social service benefits, and fight the drug smuggling cartels. Funny...when ATF, Federal Marshalls, DEA, do local busts... even here in good old WA.... they use the locals for support don't they? I believe the stats that he has deported more..but the states on the front lines say it isn't enough. Everyone of them were very careful to craft their legislation to reflect federal law. Seattle police will very quickly apprehend a bank robber or kidnapper and turn em over to the Feds for prosecution under federal statutes. Obama is being highly selective isn't he? I am fine with local law enforcement doing what they have done since the republic was founded..enforcing federal laws and writing federal law into state law. Does WA state prosecute bank robbers? No. Do local police at every level apprehend bank robbers? Yes. Given the logic you present.. no state, county, local, peace force should render assistance temporary jai custody or incarceration, aid, logistic, support to federal officers for federally prosecuted crimes? Back to your thread... nullification of law for political gain is nothing new. Just makes us more and more cynical.

   Posted 5 months ago #         

5. DBP
   Member Profile

   "Rendering assistance" implies that the assistance is wanted. In this case, I can see why the federal government would definitely not want help from the states in fingering illegals.

   If states were permitted to take the lead in enforcing immigration law – as Arizona proposed to do – that would have resulted in federal law being enforced differently in 50 different states, a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see below), in addition to being a state usurpation of federal authority under the Constitution.

   Personally, I don't have a problem with local cops asking for proof of immigration status when someone has already been arrested on other grounds. But as I understand it, Arizona was instructing cops to detain people on nothing more than suspicion of illegal immigration, which could have led to racial profiling of the worst kind.

   (Hey amigo! You don't sound like you're from around here. Can I see some ID?)

   Is that really the same thing as a cop confronting someone who's in the process of committing a bank robbery?

   Posted 5 months ago #         

6. DBP
   Member Profile

   Amendment XIV (excerpt):

   No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    

   Posted 5 months ago #         

7. kootchman
   Member Profile

   Ah...therein was the smartness of the laws as constructed. They have the rights of due process. Equal protections of the law..those laws did not say... "brown people can be stopped and questioned" those laws say ANY person suspected of immigration violations... AND ma'am... a resident alien IS required to carry their residency status..under immigration law and show same upon demand. It is part of the immigration law... Here is the law of the land. It's not that the feds don't want help "fingering" illegals... they have been ordered not to.

   "Permanent residents of the United States eighteen years of age or older must carry their valid physical green card itself at all times. Failing to do so would be a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, carrying the possibility of a fine up to $100 and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days for each offense"

   Straight from the code. The issue is... again with the original thread.. does Obama, in an effort to secure a voting constituency, have the right to order federal INS, DEA, agents to not enforce the laws of the land? He and Eric Holder seem to think so. In his oath of office, he swore to uphold the law... in point of fact..that is the responsibility of the executive branch, to administer the law. Abrogating that duty by the reckoning of the states is a violation of his oath to "faithfully execute" verses politically expeditious execution of that which suits his particular agenda.

   "Clause one is a "vesting clause," similar to other clauses in Articles One and Three, but it vests the power to execute the instructions of Congress, which has the exclusive power to make laws; "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

   The constitutional issue at hand..is..if the president does not faithfully execute the laws passed by congress, ..can the states enforce the laws of congress? I would prefer an act of impeachment myself for failure to execute the oath of office... but I will wait for the elections.

   By definition, an illegal has NOT submitted to the jurisdiction of the sovereign state... eh?

   Posted 5 months ago #         

8. DBP
   Member Profile

   Equal protections of the law..those laws did not say... "brown people can be stopped and questioned" those laws say ANY person suspected of immigration violations...

   a resident alien IS required to carry their residency status..under immigration law and show same upon demand.

   —Right, but how many non-brown-skinned people were gonna get stopped and questioned under Arizona's new rules, do you think? Look, the law says you gotta have your DL when driving a car, but that doesn't mean a cop can pull you over and ask to see your license just because he doesn't like the cut of your gib (or the color of your skin).

   There still has to be probable cause.

   does Obama, in an effort to secure a voting constituency, have the right to order federal INS, DEA, agents to not enforce the laws of the land?

   —Hm. Do I detect a slight tilt to this question?

   No, the President cannot legally tell any officer of the law not to enforce a valid law. However, what the President can do is to give federal agencies directions and guidelines. If the President doesn't happen to have the same priorities as the Arizona legislature when it comes to allocating federal resources then: Oh, well. Too bad for the Grand Canyon State.

   The constitutional issue at hand..is..if the president does not faithfully execute the laws passed by congress, ..can the states enforce the laws of congress?

   —Maybe waterworld could weigh in on this one for us, but my guess is that regardless of what the President does or doesn't do to enforce federal law, states cannot step in and try to enforce it on their own without explicit jurisdictional authority from Congress. I don't think there's currently any statute on the books that says a state can enforce immigration law, Arizona's attempts notwithstanding.

   I know you don't trust the government, kootch, but think of what would happen if Arizona actually got away with this little stunt. It would be a Pandora's Box.

   States just shouldn't be in charge of enforcing federal law.

   Posted 5 months ago #         

9. kootchman
   Member Profile

   Well of course it is weighted.. I AM a conservative and I want him soooo gone. Now, what the law says, and what the law does are two different issues. Don't we all know THAT at least? As long as the law is WRITTEN to be equally enforceable .. that means it's legal... now .. should it be that brown skinned, latino looking hombres get stopped more often..well, that's an entirely different issue. Then the conduct is illegal not the law. Well the Grand Canyon State did just what it had to do...and it is going in front of the Supreme Court with the bag lady having to recuse herself... by the way... you are very wrong about "not having enough money too bad Grand Canyon state"... FDR tried that too.

   "The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Some Presidents have claimed the authority under this provision to impound money appropriated by Congress. . President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successors sometimes refused outright to expend appropriated money. The Supreme Court, however, has held that impoundments without Congressional authorization are unconstitutional."

   Oops that argument won't fly...they are funded by congress.. and be careful of that cudgel... congressmen can count...and immigration reform gets more votes than Early Childhood Learning.

   From the "other" board.... why does he allow DOJ to pick these fights with the state?

   60% Think Federal Government Encourages Illegal Immigration
   63% Favor Immigration Checks On All Routine Traffic Stops

   There is a reason this is a dust up... the states think they can win this...and they know immigration reform is overwhelmingly popular with the voters... it's another "Obama" big government, big spender, running roughshod over the states.... poor, self reliant, we'll do ourselves if need be states...issue. He sure ain't picking fights he can win is he? He wins, he loses...

   Posted 5 months ago #         

10. waterworld
    Member Profile

    

    Awww, so nice to be invited to the party.

    In my experience, state law enforcement officials do not enforce federal laws, beyond making arrests when crimes are in progress. Kootch's bank robbery example only takes you part way. Let's say it's a bank robbery here in Seattle and SPD is dispatched while it is in progress. If the officers show up in time, they would arrest the bank robbers and then (sooner or later) hand them over to the FBI, who would transport the suspects to the federal detention center to await trial in federal court. It would quite unusual to see a bank robber prosecuted in a state superior court, and if it happened, the state would be proceeding on state laws, not the federal bank robbery statute. The county prosecutors and the state assistant attorneys general do not prosecute federal crimes in state court. I'm pretty sure that they can't -- that is, that the state courts do not have concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply federal law. (Since I can't cite the case off the top of my head, I'm hedging. If it leaps to mind, I'll mention it later.)

    On the flip side, I am also not aware of the federal agencies calling on city police or county sheriffs for support when they do things like execute search warrants or make arrests. Unlike what goes on when city cops act as first responders, agents of the DEA and FBI plan for their raids and they generally can handle them without any assistance. A major exception to this separation between the state and federal law enforcement agencies are "joint task forces," which include agents from both state and local government. When a joint task force investigates, say, a human trafficking ring, the expertise of each agency would be exploited (since they do not all have the same information and databases), and after arrests were made, the players would decide which suspects to prosecute federally and which to charge in a state superior court. In a typical drug investigation, there might be a joint task force that includes SPD, DEA, and FBI agents. If they raid some grow operations, the core participants in the (ahem, alleged) conspiracy would be prosecuted in federal court. If there were some minor participants who had some dope on them, they might be charged in state court.

    The constitutional issues are somewhat convoluted, though. For one thing, both the states and the federal government can have jurisdiction over a specific case. Look back to the Rodney King case, where the police officers were initially charged with violating state laws for beating up Mr. King. Three out of four of them were acquitted and the jury hung as to the fourth. Following the riots, the federal government prosecuted the officers for violating Mr. King's civil rights. One incident, one crime, two different prosecutions. And it's not double jeopardy -- it's a feature of our system of dual governing bodies, one at the state level, one at the federal level. In many instances, both governing bodies can exercise control.

    Does that mean that states could pass their own immigration laws and start enforcing them? I don't think so. The doctrine of federal preemption likely stands in the way of that. The federal government has so thoroughly and completely occupied the field of immigration, that the Court could easily conclude that the states cannot act on their own. (Preemption can be express or implied. Sometimes Congress just sets the floor, and lets the states provide more protection than the feds do. An example of that would be the Clean Water Act. Other times, preemption is not written expressly into the law, but it is implied, because the feds have taken full control of the issue, and because it's an issue that deserves a uniform national policy.)

    I think that still leaves unanswered the question of whether the Supreme Court can prevent Arizona and other states from enforcing federal immigration law on their own. One of the bedrock principles of our tripartite government is that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the meaning of the constitution, and it alone may invalidate an law because it is unconstitutional. (That's Marbury vs. Madison.) But as Kootchman points out, what power does the Court have if it cannot enforce its own rulings? Usually, the other two branches of government, and the states, accept the rulings of the Supreme Court; there have been few occasions in our history when the Court's authority to say what the law is was really put to the test. Following Brown vs. The Board, many state authorities simply refused to suspend their separate-but-equal educational systems. The Court ended up ordering federal marshals (who literally work for the federal courts) to enforce its rulings by escorting black children to all-white schools. I think we simply don't know what would happen if Arizona started deporting people either in contravention of federal law, or even consistent with federal law, in the face of a Supreme Court decision saying Arizona cannot constitutionally do that. It might actually depend on whether the executive branch decided to back the Supreme Court or to back the state.

    Getting back to the issue of whether Obama is required to enforce immigration laws, the answer I think is clearly no, despite the oath to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States. The reasons are political and financial, not legal. But it's no different from the police not citing every single person who speeds on the West Seattle Bridge, or the feds not prosecuting all the CEOs who knew of and participated in massive fraud on investors and home-buyers, or the DOJ and military not prosecuting who-knows-how-many people are likely guilty of committing torture and other war crimes in violation of federal law, or SPD officers not enforcing laws against their own, as when one cop sees another cop beat someone up and does nothing to stop it, or ... You get the idea. Although in theory there should be a remedy for every violation of the law or every violation of someone's rights, in reality there just isn't. Every administration sets its own priorities; no administration has enough resources to do everything it should or everything it would like to; and no doubt every administration exploits these facts to avoid doing things that it really ought to. I think that's just a disappointing reality about our system of government. But I do not think that means the states get to jump in wherever they want, in areas that the federal government has taken exclusive jurisdiction. The question I can't answer is whether immigration is or is not such an area -- I tend to think it is preempted by federal law, but I'm just a person typing on a forum.

    Okay, sorry I rambled on and on.

    Posted 5 months ago #         

11. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Well this issue is slathered in the taint of politics. Given the West Seattle bridge example..if the speed limit is 45 mph, clearly posted, and the scofflaws choose to ignore it en masse, and the consequence is accident upon accident with injury, and a record of citizen complaints and grievous injury. Eventually there will be litigation that the city did not enforce traffic laws, routinely ignoring the predictable consequences. (we know Seattle rarely turns down a revenue opportunity though) Hell the city has had to settle pot hole complaint... To further bolster the plaintiffs case, there is a long history and a trail of documents and news reports that the West Seattle bridge was repeatedly brought to the attention of the city..and ignored... we would be reading about a multi-million dollar settlement. There being no alternative to SPD enforcing the law, I suspect the jury trial would be avoided at all costs.

    The border states and destination states, routinely have petitioned the federal government with statistics of crimes, human trafficking, drug smuggling, corruption of law enforcement, and not least, mandates to provide unreimbursed social services and the federal government has failed to respond adequately. For heavens sake we have national monuments and sovereign US territory with are under do not travel advisory by the federal government, That is beyond the pale we surrender US territory. The states are petitioning the Supreme Court. In Brown verses the Board..it was found that the disparity in the "separate but equal" made the case for the court. The state funding and support of segregated schools was not equal and not adeguate. Seperate but NOT equal was the strategy of Thurgood Marshall and that I believe carried the day. Not equal implied not adequate.

    The states don't want border enforcement. As I understand it, they carefully crafted the law to not usurp federal law, rather to mirror federal law, not create new law or new penalties. They do not imprison illegals, doing exactly what first responders do in bank robbery... arrest and detain until transferred to federal custody. The courts IMHO opinion will lay on the federal government the same as Brown v Board... find the funds and do the job. That is the remedy the states want. That would be a state success. The executive branch has a congressional mandate, they are not achieving that mandate. Competence is not the question. The intention is to subvert congressional law. The court can, as in Brown v Board, set and monitor the remedy, a hell of a cloud over the executive branch.

    Either way The Messiah is playing politics with the immigrations laws... and it will bite him in the ass. He drives five states into the red column.

    Ramble on... thanks WSB consigliere

    Posted 5 months ago #         

12. redblack
    Member Profile

    

    Well this issue is slathered in the taint of politics.

    which might explain your insinuation that andrew jackson was a founding member of the democratic party.

    Posted 5 months ago #         

13. kootchman
    Member Profile

    He was redblack...it's not an insinuation. Historical fact.

    Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was the seventh President of the United States (1829–1837). A polarizing figure who dominated the Second Party System in the 1820s and 1830s, as president he destroyed the national bank and relocated most Indian tribes from the Southeast to west of the Mississippi River. His enthusiastic followers created the modern Democratic Party

    During the election, Jackson's opponents referred to him as a "jackass". Jackson liked the name and used the jackass as a symbol for a while, but it died out. However, it later became the symbol for the Democratic Party when cartoonist Thomas Nast popularized it

    Posted 5 months ago #         

14. kootchman
    Member Profile

    DBP

    Congressional nullification by neglect... how do you think Anton Scalia will respond to this? Sovereign US territory!!!

    Roughly 3,500 acres of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge -- about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre park -- have been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials acknowledged a marked increase in violence along a tract of land that extends north from the border for roughly three-quarters of a mile. Federal officials say they have no plans to reopen the area.

    or

    Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which shares a 32-mile stretch of the border with Mexico, visitors are warned on a federally-run website that some areas are not accessible by anyone. visitors should be aware that "drug smuggling routes" pass through the park.

    or

    Dennis Godfrey, a spokesman for the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona office, said roughly a dozen signs were posted earlier this month along the Sonoran Desert National Monument advising that travel in the area is not recommended due to "active drug and human" smuggling. The signs are not far from where a Pinal County deputy was shot and killed during a confrontation with marijuana smugglers in April and the fatal shooting of two men suspected to be drug smugglers

    or

    Similar signs have been posted at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and the Coronado National Forest, which covers nearly 1.8 million acres in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico.

    Ya think The Messiah is doing a great job? We ceded not one damn square inch of sovereign US soil to any foreign invader since the founding of the republic ... until now. Imagine a sign on The National Mall in WA DC...due to drug and human trafficking the National Mall is closed until further notice....ah what the hell...it's only a national monument right?

    Posted 5 months ago #         

15. redblack
    Member Profile

    

    abraham lincoln fought for a more powerful federal government and a diminution of states' rights. and arguably, that political position killed almost 1 million americans.

    ronald reagan raised more national debt than all other presidents before him combined.

    i'll happily denounce andrew jackson - and his "enthusiastic followers."

    will you denounce lincoln and reagan?

    Posted 5 months ago #         

16. redblack
    Member Profile

    

    advising that travel in the area is not recommended due to "active drug and human" smuggling.

    i guess free market capitalism has its limits.

    Posted 5 months ago #         

17. kootchman
    Member Profile

    I was not denouncing Jackson... I was following the thread... to wit, Gingrich is not the first to usurp or suggest usurping the powers vested by the constitution, and that in fact The Messiah is doing so now.

    RR, JFK,and George W also increased federal revenues the most of any presidents since the founding... all after tax cuts. Yep they sure did... JFK was the first trickle downer.. surprised? Ya got the results, but not the reasons. If Congress spends it faster than the IRS raises it...dude..ya got deficits. Congress has the purse strings...not the executive branch... watch 2012 when the house starves Obamacare..if by remote chance the House, Senate, and Presidency don't swing republican. and repeal it outright... A lot of trimming at EPA and DOJ coming too... and my favorite... the NLRB gets a tin cup, and a street corner.

    Congress my friend does the spending. I will denounce again .. Dubya for his asinine war . how many times do I have to do it?. Lincoln as you well know went to war after SC fired cannonade on the Federal Fort in Sumter SC demanded and got a surrender and striking of the national ensign.. an act of war..and seceded from the union. In fact...if you read the essence of the Missouri Compromise, Lincoln was very amenable to states rights, up to and including the expansion of slavery into new states by popular vote. And although he COULD have suspended habeus corpus... he brought it before congress for approval.

    Posted 5 months ago #         

18. redblack
    Member Profile

    

    re: lincoln: did SC succeed in seceding from the union?

    no, they did not. ergo, lincoln was anti-states' rights.

    ergo, he was not a republican.

    you cherry pick your facts and make ridiculous, bombastic statements. i'll cherry pick mine and do the same.

    fair?

    RR, JFK,and George W also increased federal revenues the most of any presidents since the founding

    yet our socialist nigerian overlord/messiah has been better for millionaire's bottom lines than any president in modern history.

    Congress my friend does the spending.

    and the executive writes the budget. what's your point? as you've said many times, congress hasn't approved a budget in 3 years. yet we keep spending.

    weird, huh?

    Posted 5 months ago #         

19. waterworld
    Member Profile

    

    I certainly agree that if SPD stopped enforcing the speed limit altogether on the bridge, someone injured in a speed-related accident would use that in litigation. It would make the city look bad, and the city would have an incentive to settle rather than deal with a lot of bad publicity. But so long as some enforcement goes on-- even inadequate enforcement-- the injured person would not have a good legal argument that the city bore responsibility for the accident. That's because the individual doesn't have a private right to have the speed limit enforced. It takes more directed and specific action by the state to create a private right such as that (such as when the state takes on the job of supervising a specific felon, and then doesn't do it). So I don't think you can extract from the general immigration laws an individual right, or a state right, to specific federal enforcement activities. Obama mat not be doing enough for some people, but he's not doing nothing.

    I don't see how you get from Brown to a right of state governments to either insist on certain federal immigration action or to impose their own immigration laws. I raised Brown to point out that the Court has very limited ability to enforce its own rulings. If the states ignore the court, the executive branch will havean interesting problem on its hands. I understand the risk of unequal enforcement that DBP is raising, but I'm not sure this is really an equal protection issue. (I mean, I'm sure the law will be applied in a racially discriminatory manner. But I don't think that that's the reason the Obama administration has challenged it.) One problem with Arizona's immigration law is that it actually does include provisions that are substantially more burdensome than federal law. Officers are required to check the immigration status of anyone they stop who they think could be here illegally. Federal law doesn't require that. Also federal law invests the government with wide discretion in the enforcement of immigration law. Not all undocumented aliens are deported. But Arizona seeks to employ every basis for deportation that exists, in every possible case. This functionally puts the state at odds with the federal government on immigration policy.

    I don't disagree with you, Kootch, that it is the role of the executive branch to enforce the laws that congress has passed. Yet it is also a feature of our government that each administration, one way or another, interprets that role in political terms, consistent with its own agenda. The second Bush administration reduced enforcement of environmental and civil rights laws by reducing staffs in the offices charged with enforcing the law, firing attorneys who exhibited a tendency toward enforcement of those laws, and replacing them with inexperienced lawyers who were aligned with the administration's position. As you know, I'm sure, this went all the way to the point of firing seven US Attorneys who enforced the laws in a way that was entirely legal, but not to the administration's liking. No one was impeached or prosecuted for that, and that's probably the right result.

    Issues like immigration policy are inherently political. I don't think there's anything unconstitutional or even wrong with a president weighing everything from foreign policy to humanitarian concerns in deciding how to enforce immigration laws. I would prefer to see the federal government take on a much larger share of the financial burden on individual states, especially if it would mean that state governments would be more receptive to the idea that this is an issue that affects us as a nation. But I think it will be a bad day in the long run, in all sorts of ways we are not considering right now,if the supreme court says that states can write their own laws in areas traditionally recognized as preempted by federal law.

    Posted 5 months ago #         

20. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Continuing resolutions like the ones we keep having over and over again...the executive writes the budget dude... THEN submits it for approval. And like any other piece of legislation congress, adds riders, ear marks, tax code exemptions, all manner of crap. THEN the president gets the reconciled version to sign...usually holding his nose...but ... thems politics. Well if the Overlord has been so good for millionaires and billionaires...can we count on your support in November? Yes the did successfully secede. the show only lasted 4 years but secede they did. ..they made the declaration...but foolishly they fired on a US garrison. There has been much speculation,,, by historians wether we would have had a civil war without the Sumter incident...Shelby Steele says probably not.

    From Harpers Bazaar = April 27 1861

    . No one who knows any thing of the Southern people supposes for a moment that, having gone so far as to bombard a United States fort and capture it, they will now succumb without a fight.

    A reluctant federalist at best,

    Posted 5 months ago #         

21. kootchman
    Member Profile

    In Brown..the courts held that the education of black students was not equal, therefore not adequete ... Marshall presented funding, physical plant, texts or lack thereof... a civil rights issue to be sure..but given the times...the court sure relied on the inadequacy to support the Marshall arguement "separate but not equal" To what end is a law if it is not adequatly enforced? A rhetorical question. Scalia will find it! Having been a plaintiff in a civil rights case.. federal district court.. we prevailed under equal protection clause... and the judge, god bless his little heart.. found NY State and Orleans County..provided protection that was inadeguate.I remember the words... See my drift here? Yes, perhaps for publicity avoidance...but NYS and Orleans County settled for $$$ and a 5 month sentence for one sheriff. at a club fed.... I don;t think AZ et al want immigration enforcement on their plate (well maybe Sheriff Joe does) and don't want REALLY to have the federal job.. they want the feds to step up to the plate... the court must have found something in the petition to agree to hear the case...the Chief has something on his mind federal law supremacy was long ago established. what's new? The Supreme Court doesn't give courtesy calls.. there has to be a constitutional issue somewhere. My guess? The state will be allowed to enforce federal law when the executive branch does so in a blatantly inadequate manner as to nullify the intent of congress... just a guess.

    Posted 5 months ago #         

22. DBP
    Member Profile

    Yeah, the Arizona immigration law was probably more of a political stunt than anything. And it worked, too, by forcing Obama to the right on immigration policy and alienating a sizeable number of Hispanic voters.

    Still, Obama was smart enough not to get played too badly on this. He's successfully asserted federal government supremacy. And I'm guessing that in the meantime the INS has stepped up enforcement in Arizona, so people there (who DO have legitimate gripes by the way) won't get too riled up.

    Observe, peoples! This is classic Obama:

     Please some of the people all of the time
     and all of the people none of the time.

    Compare with "President" Newt Gingrich, whose motto would be:

     Please Newt Gingrich all of the time and screw the rest of y'all.

    Gingrinch is sharp as a tack. Theoretically, he'd make a good President. There's just one thing missing . . .

       
     

    Posted 5 months ago #         

23. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Ahhh he hasn't. The Supreme Court did not entertain "what ifs" this summer in rejecting another complaint for review.. like what if there is profiling... and in fact as federal courts have ruled... in lower court immigration cases... Federal Law does not specifically PRECLUDE state enforcement. In order for the feds to assert supremacy violation the state would have to be in violation, which they are not..states may write ANY laws not specifically PROHIBITED by congress or found to be unconstitutional...and that ain't the case here... congress would specifically have to write in the immigration law.. "states may not arrest, detain, illegal immigrants" and federal law does NOT say that. States MAY uphold federal law...unless directed not to. Obama can't write immigration law... and congress sure isn't going to specifically preclude it.. it's not about federal supremacy at all.... DPB how many Obama quotes can you find that say something to the effect... "(blank) will be my highest priority when elected" .. comprehensive immigration reform was one of them... and fixing the economy, and implementing universal, single payer healthcare, and getting unemployment to 8% within the first year of his administration.. for a man who has so many highest priorities, he sure hasn't done any of them has he? Remember the promise he made... he would reject any bills with earmarks? Yet hsi healthcare bill holds the singular distinction of having more earmarks than any piece of federal legislation in the history of this country? Oh yes,,, the main has a record to run on...and when the Republican primary is over... then the spotlight shifts...to his record. Y'know.. Bush, McCain both supported comprehensive reform.. Gingrich does too... in fact, pretty generous reform...pragmatic even. Those who are a benefit can stay...those who aren't go home. But, the have to present themselves to the appointed agency and mechanism decided by congress... no blanket immunity. We don't need any more housecleaners and lawn boys for Hollywood residents...we need engineers, biologists, scientists, etc... from India, Canada, Singapore, etc... who can contribute to a 22nd century economy... and not end up on the social welface rolls by the billions of dollars....we don't need human traffickers, drug gangs, as our new citizen class of immigrants.

    Posted 5 months ago #         

24. JoB
    Member Profile

    kootch...

    "we need engineers, biologists, scientists, etc... from India, Canada, Singapore, etc... who can contribute to a 22nd century economy..."

    because god knows our own engineers, biologists, scientists, etc... make too much and need the competition of immigrants whose legal status is dependent upon the good will of their employers to bring those wages down...

    not so much.

    immigration is the cornerstone that built this nation..

    those shouting the loudest about the illegals in our midst ought to know that the chances are pretty good that they too have an illegal family or two in their family history...

    i know i do.

    guess what the upstanding citizens of their day said about them?

    Posted 5 months ago #         

25. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Job when we needed unskilled, desperate labor to drive railroad spikes, and drill blasting holes om bedrock.. in came the Irish, Chinese etc... they had needed skills... muscles. We don't need those skills.. in fact we have too many of our own citizens with only that skill set. We need engineers to design more efficient ways to manufacture and produce to maintain productivity OR our living standards will continue to decline. We need the bioengineers, .. for new science and innovation... we need to create a larger GDP to keep affording your ever more ambitious visions for wealth confiscation. We have enough waiters and servers at Democratic fund raisers in Hollywood. We don't need an unskilled 19th century work force to exploit. Even if we could exploit them, 100 Irish gandy dancers couldn't drive as many spikes in a month as a mechanized, computer controlled, track laying crew could lay in two days... You are in the wrong century on this issue. Job... got news for ya... 75% of the doctoral candidates in the sciences? Foreign students....going home to compete against us... bty there aren't enough of them to fill the job openings.... jobs that are open right now.

    Posted 5 months ago #         

26. JoB
    Member Profile

    kootchman..

    we have engineers and scientists who are currently unemployed because American companies are not hiring them to "design more efficient ways to manufacture and produce to maintain productivity" in this country.

    they hire foreign workers who have gained their skill sets in US Universities overseas to increase productivity in their overseas factories where they can pay them even lower wages than they can by importing them to work here.

    Sad, isn't it?

    Posted 5 months ago #         

27. kootchman
    Member Profile

    You are so so so wrong.... you pull these conclusions out of vapor.

    Highest rates

    1. Helpers, construction trades (36%)

    3. structural & steel workers (28.4%)

    4. roofers (27.1%), 5. millwrights (25.5%)

    6. cement masons/concrete (25.3%)

    7. brick/stone masons (25.1%)

    8. construction laborers (25.0%)

    9. drywall installers (23.9%)

    see that? low skill workers. habla usted Espanol? Home Depot parking lot recruitment.

    Sorry, I know better.... I can see it every day. Manufacturing engineers are in dire shortage HERE in the USA... my old alma mater is selling the lists of its engineering alumni to recruiters across the country... my desk is stacked with pleas to find anyone that wants to move to NC, TX, LA, MA. NY, CA... anyone I might know... production engineers can write their ticket...at an unemployment rate of 1.9 per cent? The ones educated here... are not hired by "us" over there... nooo they become start-ups and tool up to kick our ass... go to any large engineering firm and see how many H1-B workers are here.

    Posted 5 months ago #         

28. JoB
    Member Profile

    kootchman..

    and i tapdance in the world of engineers and scientists..
    many of whom are now employed in retail:(

    funny you should mention those H1-B workers...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa

    "Wage depression is a chronic complaint critics have about the H-1B program"... "It is claimed[41][42][43][44][45][45] that the H-1B program is primarily used as a source of cheap labor." ...

    "The LCA included in the H-1B petition is supposed to ensure that H-1B workers are paid the prevailing wage in the labor market, or the employer's actual average wage (whichever is higher)[citation needed], but evidence exists that some employers do not abide by these provisions and avoid paying the actual prevailing wage despite stiff penalties for abusers.[46]

    DOL has split the prevailing wage into four levels, with Level One representing about the 17th percentile of wage average Americans earn. About 80 percent of LCAs are filed at this 17th percentile level[citation needed]." ...

    The "prevailing wage" stipulation is allegedly vague and thus easy to manipulate[citation needed], resulting in employers underpaying visa workers. According to Ron Hira, assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, the median wage in 2005 for new H-1B information technology (IT) was just $50,000, which is even lower than starting wages for IT graduates with a B.S. degree. The U.S. government OES office's data indicates that 90 percent of H-1B IT wages were below the median U.S. wage for the same occupation.[48]"

    funny you should mention H1-Bs kootch...
    sorta makes my point, doesn't it?

    Posted 5 months ago #         

29. kootchman
    Member Profile

    IF they are in retail.. they suck in interviews. It s "claimed" is another liberal urban myth. Democrats and unions claim it...people trying to hire them don't... Glad to see the 2005 stats... that was 7 years ago and it has gotten more dire. As will alway be the case... the shorter the supply, the more it costs...and the more you have to offer, the more you can command. I know and socialize with 2 H1-B's that work in an immensely large Bellevue firm.. both from China, and both knocking down MORE than most of their counterparts... because they both speak Mandarin. See.. short supply talent, with added skills. More money. Now, there were two options for this particular firm... relocate to China or , open a small field office in China and do the design and engineering work here. Geez .. one of the subjects runs an entire division of the unnamed company. She has two children, and nary a one is affected by, early childhood education cuts, social service referral program cuts, needs taxpayer supported lunches or breakfasts...both own great homes, not stressed by being high risk, low income loans that they can't afford to make payments on. Your point is grounded in complete fallacy you are repeating some gobbly dee gook... They are value adding to the professional services being offered overseas by a domestic US company that is growing by leaps and bounds... and is still hiring as of last Weds. But, of course we offer up, students who have read I Have two Mommy's, who rank in the bottom quintile of industrialized nations in math and science, and of course a full 35-40 % who don't even graduate from the dumbed down school system we have... and how many USA students can participate in the growing markets of the world by speaking a foreign language? Ready...?? Only 8% of University students study a foreign language... and less than 5% of Americans are "proficient" in a foreign language... so where are the growth markets we would need to participate in... Brazil (Portugese) China (Mandarin) Russia (Russian) India (Hindo/Urdu) If nothing else we should immediately grant H1-B visas to any qualified teachers of any of the above...who speak English. and put them in the classroom....But no we Democrats want 18 million, illiterate, native language comprehending, unskilled labors as our economic engine for growth.... Christ JoB the obvious.... do the obvious. Now.. interesting.. since we need more money according to you to solve all the ills of teaching and education reform.. (although teachers salaries and education costs have risen through the roof).... I wonder how much that rural Chinese educator(s) would take as an H!B worker to come teach here? Bet they would rejoice at the pa scale here in WA and we would never see a strike... hmmmm ya got me thinking here....

    Posted 5 months ago #         

30. JoB
    Member Profile

    Kootchman...

    there is no dire shortage of educated workers in the United States. it is a myth.

    Plenty of qualified applicants show up for every job interview.

    but i was glad to see you close with the reality behind that myth..

    "Bet they would rejoice at the pa scale here in WA and we would never see a strike..."

    out of the mouths of .....

    Posted 4 months ago #         

31. kootchman
    Member Profile

    That is simply not true. Although, given your rationale, those with the highest level of unemployment, those with the greatest downward pressure on wages would the the low skill worker pool who have to fight the 14-20 estimated illegal aliens that compete for their jobs under the auspices of the Obama I Don''t Care Rio Grande immigration policy? Let's hear from the people that do the hiring. The stress is palpable...but as you well know, the majority of unemployment is very concentrated in the least productive worker profiles.

    "Plenty of people are applying for jobs. The problem, the companies say, is a mismatch between the kind of skilled workers needed and the ranks of the unemployed.”

    One reason for this shortage is that manufacturers continue to get rid of low-skill workers and replace them with automation. According to the article, “Now they are looking to hire people who can operate sophisticated computerized machinery, follow complex blueprints, and demonstrate higher proficiency than previously required of the typical assembly line workers.'

    OR

    "Linda Fillingham proudly shows off employees making the metal parts that go into some of America's biggest machines.
    What's holding her machine shop back isn't a shortage of work. Instead, it's a shortage of workers, whom she's willing to pay $13 to $18 an hour."Thirty to 40 we could use right now," Fillingham said.A recent survey found 22 percent of American businesses say they are ready to hire if they can find the right people. "You need to come up to bat and play the game if you want to be in it," said Fillingham. "It's there if you want to do it

    OR

    Losing customers and a shortage of skilled workers has topped the 2011 Lloyd's Risk Index, displacing a lack of credit as the greatest worry for businesses. The Economist Intelligence Unit surveyed 500 global businesses on behalf of Lloyd's to determine the top risks perceived by businesses.

    OR

    ."The nightmare that is plaguing many companies as the economy recovers is the lack of skilled workers. There is no one cause for the shortages but a significant driver is the loss of Baby Boomer brain power. But the good news is that there can be a happy ending.The shortage of skilled worker problem is already acute in many industries like healthcare, aerospace, energy, and even technology. It has been exacerbated by a failure to plan, despite ample warning, about the impact of aging Baby Boomers."

    Sure JoB..sure. Let's see, Brazil just officially passed Great Britain as the worlds 6th largest economy...and how many schools in Seattle teach Portugese? I actually work in design and engineering fields... I KNOW not by anecdote, but actual contact, there ARE labor shortages in multiple skilled worker fields. One of my principals has been looking for a USA civil engineer, structural engineer, or architect who speaks fluent Portugese... located in Seattle, or Portland... two interviews in 6 months..none qualified.

    Educated does not mean vocationally QUALIFIED prepared or ready to work. Poly Sci majors, undergrad psychology majors, just aren't in demand. The facts are general non-skilled labor has it tough, will continue to have it tough as business migrate to greater productivity... it's only productivity that will fund all the lefties goodies and ever expanding wish lists... and investment in sophisticated manufacturing, engineering, design, that gives production tools in the hands of skilled workers. American businesses don't have to invest in workers who rank so low in the worlds education standards. They have an entire world to pick from. If they can't find them here..the will go overseas to find them before they lose customers. We DO need immigrants... with skills that benefit our economy, not illiterate economic refugees from Honduras, Mexico, Guatamala.

    Posted 4 months ago #         

32. JoB
    Member Profile

    kootch...

    you are out of touch with reality dude...

    Some of those who have been unemployed the longest in our "downturn" are the well educated professionals.

    and to be perfectly honest.. if we increase H1-B workers
    mind you the program has already maxed out for 2012
    they will be unemployed that much longer.

    Posted 4 months ago #         

33. kootchman
    Member Profile

    You keep saying 'well educated" professionals... I keep saying .. necessary, critical skill, workers. Not Comparative Gender Studies, not, psychology, not anthropology, Art History, or Recreation and Leisure...etc.. But this was too funny...

    "“NEW YORK (CNN) – A recent college graduate is suing her alma mater for $72,000 — the full cost of her tuition and then some — because she cannot find a job.
    Trina Thompson, 27, of the Bronx, graduated from New York’s Monroe College in April with a bachelor of business administration degree in information technology.

    What I find troubling is the idea that simply attending college is the ticket to a job.

    “In her complaint, Thompson says she seeks $70,000 in reimbursement for her tuition and $2,000 to compensate for the stress of her three-month job search

    Ya think? Three whole months? 70K in debt? 2.7 GPA? oh yea and good attendance... I am guessing the interview process stopped at the "I am entitled attitude" or the credit score ... there is that little thing called "gumption" too.

    http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp

    Still, even then, 4 year college grad rates, age 25 and over is 3,7 per cent.... and THAT is full employment .

    National Center for Education Statistics: (less than 14% enroll in the rigors of STEM degree undergrad and graduate programs,.. that isn't enough to meet demand)

    enrolled in a STEM field, including 5 percent in computer/information sciences, 4 percent in engineering/engineering technologies, 3 percent in biological/agricultural sciences, and less than 1 percent each
    in physical sciences and mathematics

    The Economist
    But the number of high school grads in the labour force has dropped by 305,000 while the number of college grads in the labour force has risen by 355,000. And employment among high school grads has fallen by 29,000 over the past year, while employment among college grads has increased by 617,000.

    Facts are irksome little things.... and could it possibly be that the extended unemployment benefits are as statistically shown... those that are unemployed over 28 weeks... all classes of workers and graduates... stop looking with all of the extended benefits? Get a check, lose your drive and hustle?

    Posted 4 months ago #         

34. JoB
    Member Profile

    kootch...

    well educated professionals with science/math/computing/engineering backgrounds...

    that is what we were talking about
    isn't it?

    and you really believe that well educated professionals who purchased upper middle class lifestyles with those expensive educations are maintaining those lifestyles on unemployment?

    "Get a check, lose your drive and hustle? "

    you really do need a reality check Kootch...

    Posted 4 months ago #         

35. kootchman
    Member Profile

    No, and they are not unemployed either. It's the ones whose incomes are less traumatized by unemployment that stay longer.. once they pass 28 weeks they become chronic benefit recipients I just showed you the government statistics. The STEM are less than 3.9 per cent unemployed , and that ma'am is considered "full employment". It is slightly higher for new grads...businesses are more keen to hire, young enough to be current, but with some experience. The Jimmy Carter years were far, far worse. However... the welfare state was not so expansive and jobs were found. I had to leave the east coast.. as some of the grads will have to recognize is part of becoming employed, you go where the job are... and it took all of two months to find a job.. and other than by choice sabbatical, nary a single day of unemployment since. I have the stats ma'am... unemployment is not the affliction you would make it for our mutually agreed upon category. It's less than 4%.... less than 4%..check you own government publications. For a nation that graduates less than 68 per cent from HS, in the bottom quintile, has the lowest college enrollments is STEM curriculum and rates Math is the key indicator... here;s the reason we need foreign workers in the science and technology fields.. US Corporations HAVE to hire the very best in a very competitive world... and we do not produce the very best....not by a long shot. Better for us all that we "brain drain" our competitors rather than try and compete with an inferior work force... and... you never responded to the main point... we are allowing 14-20 million unskilled, illegal immigrants in... putting pressure on the most unskilled, unable to compete... in our labor pool. You focus on programs designed to bring in the very best and brightest...and say they create downward pressures on wages? Ridiculous on the face of it. You also said immigration is our foundation of success and then proceed to explain that doesn't apply to skilled workers" Just illiterate economic refugees? Jeesh...

    "Fifteen-year-olds in the U.S. ranked 25th among peers from 34 countries on a math test and scored in the middle in science and reading, while China’s Shanghai topped the charts, raising concern that the U.S. isn’t prepared to succeed in the global economy."

    Bloomberg on PISA test scores

    Given the choice, who will create the most prosperity for the most amount of people... I will take 4.0 student from India Institute of Technology against a 2.5 WSU graduate any day. I know the IIT grad will speak 3 languages, has cross cultural sensitivities, and will add to the collective national wealth... and we can't afford to hire second best any longer.

    Posted 4 months ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.