Ok, I’ll give you that. I’ll change my initial question.
The Federal Government is charged with protecting the border, which includes keeping illegal immigrants out.
The number of illegal immigrants remains at an all-time high.
Is this considered:
A) Success
B) Failure
The only other place I’ve ever seen such inexplicably random overuse of ellipses is the comic strip The Phantom.
Based on the 2010 cites: the past two years were a Decline; and deportations are Up. I don’t think that it can mathematically be an all time high. So, obviously it’s down from the more out of date 2008 cite ‘‘all time high.’’ It’s obvious that progress is being made. So not a failure.
This is factually untrue.
That’s not the question that’s being answered. The deportation figures are being given as a rebuttal to the accusation that the federal government is “ignoring” immigration law and that the rates of illegal immigration have increased under Obama.
Seen at my occasional lurking-place:
Aside from the fact that you’ve been factually wrong in every claim you’ve made, you also missed the point that what I was asking to see evidence for (not that you’ve actually produced evidence for anything at all) was the claim that the federal government was “ignoring” the law. The fact that Obama has increased enforcement over his predecessor (increased deportatiion to record levels, in fact), and has reduced the illegal immigration rate is a direct rebuttal of that allegation.
I don’t have a cite, but if we’re talking about aliens having to carry their Green Card at all times consider this:
This is a federal issue, so it would require a federal officer to ask a suspected alien if he/she is carrying her documents.
My only experience with a federal officer involves going through US Customs at a border crossing, and I was asked 100% of the time No Green Card means no access. There is no opportunity to violate this law, because a resident alien would be unable to enter the country without being in possession of their Green Card.
I would conclude that this represents 100% enforcement.
As a followup, is there any way to search a legal database for cases involving a person not having their green card on them?
Is there any practical difference between ignoring the law and not enforcing it? I’m sure there is a technical difference, but a real-life one?
There is no evdience that law is not being enforced. The law is enforced every time somebody enters the country, which is the only time enforcement matters. There’s no reason to keep following them around demanding to see their green card every five seconds once they’re in.
Even if there is certainty that said person entered illegally?
anyway, that’s not what the law said, as has been pointed out.
I don’t understand your question. If it is a certainty they’re in the country illegally, then there’s no point in asking to see a green card.
In any case, it’s a federal issue not a state issue. It’s none of the state’s business if someone is carrying his green card with him. They do not have the jurisdiction to make any laws about it.
So if the standard for proving “ignoring the law” here is to show an official policy exists, I assume you’d be perfectly sanguine in applying the same standard if we ever happen to discuss the “ignoring” of other laws, say, voting rights? They’re not ignoring any law unless an official policy exists. Fair enough. I’m bookmarking this thread.
That remains to be seen. But you’re on the right track, since I agree that this statement (and the implied preemption argument) is the strongest argument against the law.
There’s some outrage-lovin’ goin’ on, but in my experience, it ain’t from the Liberals.
'Cause I can tell you why I, personally, am against it- I see it as a foot-in-the-door law. I can easily see this law being abused and extended, until “Papers please” becomes the norm for all citizens (legal or otherwise). Given how Conservatives of late seem to be terrified of expanding government powers, I’m actually more than a little surprised that this is such a Right-Left issue. Conservatives are against a National ID plan, but are actively encouraging laws to require citizens to carry ID. Sense- this makes none.
And yet Conservatives went for the symptom, rather than the cause. Why? Because they didn’t want to piss off business owners who rely on cheap illegal labor. And that’s the hypocrisy that really bugs me.
There are four broad classes of people in the U.S.:
(1) U.S citizens.
(2) Alien permanent residents (who have a “green card”)
(3) Aliens visiting or temporarily residing in the U.S. with a valid visa or visa waiver that allows to in the country for a limited time.
(4) Aliens illegally present in the U.S.
That fourth class can be divided into two broad classes:
(4)(a) Aliens who once had a valid permanent residence, visa, or visa waiver, but who have stayed in the country past the expiry of that.
(4)(b) Aliens who entered the country illegally.
Only people in category (2) are required to carry a green card, because all the rest don’t have one.
As I understand it, people in category (3) are required to carry their passports and visas or visa waiver forms. So, Herr Schmidt, who is on a business trip to New York from Germany, must carry his passport and visa, while Suzuki-san, who is on holiday in Hawaii from Japan, must carry her passport and visa waiver. However, of course, in practice they will only be asked when entering and leaving the U.S. The New York City Police and the Honolulu Police have better things to do with their time.
Here is a thread started by a conservative about Obama.. Doesn’t seem outraged.
I don’t agree. Obviously we have some “drive-by” folks lately that have posted some pretty out-there screeds. But surely you’ll agree that we have a well-known, if small, group of longer-term, serious conservatives here, yes?
If we limit the examples to anyone who has more than, say, 1,000 posts, and is a current poster, I think it will be far easier to find outrage from the liberals here than from the conservatives.
I think there are many motives. For most liberals, I suspect it’s some favlor of the complaint you have above. For a minority, I suspect it’s because there is a knee-jerk reaction to support the underdog, with the issue if legality a distant concern. And for a very few, I suspect it’s a desire to swell the ranks of voters with formerly-illegal immigrants.
Very reasonable. But that’s the kind of argument that can be made without resorting to falsehoods about the current law. Not everyone seems interested in doing that.
The hypocrisy that bugs me, in turn, is the willingness to propagate lies (excuse me… “inaccuracies”) about the facts of the law, even if the face of repeated rebuttals.
If your case is so strong, then make it on the facts.
Not the “facts.”
Whoa counselor. I do not know why you would accuse me of lying without checking YOUR facts first.
You do realize not everyone reads every thread on the SDMB right?
I do noy recall these 8 million debunkings and I searched for my name+Arizona in the last year and it appears I have not participated in any of your 8+ million debunkings. Look for yourself.
My cite was a good faith effort. Here is the search I did on “arizona immigration bill”. Note what I linked to was the first link provided to the text of the bill. I suppose I should have paid more attention that it was the “Senate” bill but hardly an intentional mistake and not meant to mislead. Just a knee jerk reaction that Google would generally give you the full text of the immigration bill when you search for the Arizona immigration bill.
Thanks for the rush to judgment thought. Good to know you are of a “shoot first, let god sort them out” character and don’t let little things like facts bother you.
And will not carry their passports at all times (both the visa and the waiver are stuck to it), only when they expect to need them, because they know that having the passport lost or stolen would mean a huge hassle.
Did you read what I posted earlier?
Yes Clinton appointed her but did so based on a direct recommendation from John Kyl. Basically Clinton appointed her because the seat was vacant and Clinton happened to be the president at that time.
John Kyl is a republican senator from Arizona and currently the minority whip in the senate. I’d say his conservative bonafides must be pretty good to get that job.
Also, please point to other examples of her judicial activism if you want to label her an activist judge (betting you didn’t bother to check).
I thought conservatives were law-and-order folk. So far from you and Bricker seems you are hang-em high folk and nevermind pesky things like getting at the TRUTH bother you.
If you don’t like 'em, crucify 'em!
In addition to my quick legal commentary above, I’ll offer a political commentary: this will further energize conservatives to get out and vote, and (since it eviscerates that portion of the law) it virtually eliminates the possibility that Arizona will indulge in any racially-based profiling between now and election day that the opposition can point to to show what a bad law this is.
So in my view… this is a good development.