The Supreme Court is hearing a case on the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

This is the law in question.

This is the Wikipedia article on this case

The oral arguments are going to happen today.

In this case, the Federal Government is fighting against Arizona. The Federal Government argues that immigration is something that only they have the constitutional power to handle. Since this is a national problem instead of just an intrastate problem, it could make the problem worse if states try to solve it on their own.

Arizona argues that it has the right to act against illegal immigration because it is the state which suffers the most from illegal immigration (as a result, Arizona is concerned both with the money it costs the state to deal with it, and with the safety of their citizens), and because Congress has proven that it's unable to pass meaningful reform on this issue.

One very interesting complication is that Justice Elena Kagan is excusing herself from this case (Supreme Court Justices are allowed to excuse themselves if they feel that they'd be too biased to preform their duty). This means that it's possible for the case to result in a tied 4-4 vote.

[LeftyGreenMario]

Arizona "suffers" from illegal immigration? Could it be that they also scare away potential workers with the illegal immigration laws?

Arizona "suffers" from illegal immigration? Could it be that they also scare away potential workers with the illegal immigration laws?

It does cost money to support illegal immigrants. Illegal Immigrants use many of the services provided by the government (police, fire department, roads, etc) without paying all the taxes a legal citizen pays (though they do pay payroll and sales taxes). It's a legitimate concern for a state government.

The Arizona law isn't the solution though.

[LeftyGreenMario]

I don't think expelling them is a good idea. It just scares workers away. I've been in Arizona and there is an incredible amount of "For Lease" space, compared to California. I think something like a brachero program can help them. I'm not very experienced with this issue, though. I do wish that there is some way to help illegal immigrants get legal status.

[Ark]

What does Arizona having houses for sale (in the area that you've been in, I should note) have to do with a lack of workers?

How would another Bracero Program help? Remember, the Bracero Program was intended to recruit temporary foreign workers.

[LeftyGreenMario]

No, the "For Lease" were also the site of former stores. Sometimes, I saw whole parking lot of empty stores with that banner. It could be partly due to the recession, but is the lack of workers a reasonable explanation?

Hm, again, I'm not experienced in this, but I think we need some sort of program that is supposed to help illegal immigrants get legal status so they can contribute to the country. Removing illegal immigrants is not the best option since some people don't seem to realize that illegal immigrants provide a big portion of the work.

Uh, I'm pretty sure in an economy like this the problem isn't a lack of workers, but a lack of jobs for those workers.

The Supreme Court mostly ruled against Arizona. I was expecting them to uphold the law, so this is surprising.

This is a nominally split decision, but the Court’s opinion in Arizona v. United States is mostly a victory for S.B. 1070’s opponents. Although the Court upheld the “check your papers” provision, it struck down three others that would have had much greater impact on the ground. Justice Kennedy’s opinion validates broad federal authority over immigration, allowing only marginal participation on the part of states. The decision will take a lot of wind out of restrictionist sails at the state level.

The result could have been predicted coming out of the oral arguments in April. More surprising is the tone, which is solicitous of state power only in passing.

The Court struck down three provisions. Section 3 would have criminalized the failure to carry federal registration documents. Section 5(c) looked to penalize aliens who engaged in unauthorized employment. Section 6 would have allowed warrantless arrests of suspected undocumented aliens. The Court gave the back of the hand to each.

It did so by situating immigration as a matter of national foreign relations, a context in which tolerance for state activity is low. “It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States,” writes Justice Kennedy. “Decisions of this nature touch on foreign relations and must be made with one voice.” The foreign relations framing allowed the Court to apply a relaxed threshold for trumping the state law.

The decision here continues a tradition of immigration law exceptionalism. The Court refused to use the case to advance its federalism agenda, which has been increasingly protective of state power.

Restrictionists may cheer about the Court’s holding on Section 2(B), which mandates that state law enforcement officials make a determination of immigration status where there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an alien is illegally present in the United States. That provision got the lion’s share of media attention leading up to the decision, and the early headlines are playing up this part of the bottom line. On this score the decision shows some tolerance for state-level action, not a foregone conclusion from the precedents.

But Section 2(B) lacks teeth: it may require state law enforcement to make immigration status determinations, but there isn’t much that the state can do with determinations once made. The state can pass the information along to federal immigration authorities, who are then free to do nothing. In other words, Section 2(B) won’t result in anybody being deported. Justice Kennedy was, moreover, careful to keep the door open to subsequent challenges of Section 2(B) to the extent that it’s applied in an unreasonable fashion – if it were used, for instance, to justify prolonged detentions. By implementing Section 2(B), the state will buy itself little more than another round in court as immigrant advocates inevitably press civil rights challenges on an “as applied” basis.

Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, eyes will shift back to the political landscape. Supporters of S.B. 1070 and restrictionist state laws have a strategic choice to make: do they claim victory on Section 2(B) and try to secure adoption of similar measures in other states, or do they concede defeat and redouble their efforts to win an immigration crackdown in Washington? The decision will cramp restrictionist efforts in state capitals, on top of growing headwinds from business constituencies. Washington presents other sorts of obstacles, of course. Perhaps this is the worst of both worlds for S.B. 1070’s proponents: no clear defeat to use as a rallying call with Congress, no clear victory to secure broad laws in other states.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/su...guts-s-b-1070/

[Tori]

Why is there even a process of immigration? Why not just let people who want to live here come here, no problem?

[Helios]

Why is there even a process of immigration? Why not just let people who want to live here come here, no problem?

Because we as a nation cannot support all of them.

Do we have enough water for everyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_s...climate_change
Nope, there are farmers in Colorado who have had to close down their wells because there isn't enough water for everyone..

Do we have enough land? I don't know about you guys, but in my hometown, more open space than I would care to see destroyed is being "developed". Yes, the U.S. 'currently' has a 'ton' of open space if you count mountains, national parks, and designated open spaces. But I hate to break it to you; Humans are not the only living things on this planet. We cannot develop every freaking square inch of land into apartment complexes and suburbia. We've already deforested much more than we should have, and infringed upon a LOT of critters' natural habitats.

Do we have enough jobs? Anyone been paying attention to our unemployment? Over 8% for over 40 months: Source: those lovely Rommney ads[/sarcasm]. We don't have enough jobs for everyone ALREADY IN the united states right now. Can we take more?

I'm gonna be blunt with this: We cannot take in the population of Mexico, or any other country. The problems in that country need to be solved, we can't just evacuate their whole country into the united states. Yes, we may have better job opertunities here, but we don't have enough of them for everyone who wants them.

We currently have a huge waiting line for becoming a legal citizen. The reason it's bottlenecking? We basically don't have room to accept everyone, so they have to limit how many people get in. And when people cut in line in front of that, that's just plain wrong. I sympathize for the parents who feel like they need to work in the US in order to provide for their families, but there are a lot of those same situations waiting the LEGAL way. The solution to the problem is not "take them all under our wing". We as a world community need to figure out how to improve conditions in some of these terrible places with corrupt governments.

The Arizona bill is about enforcing what is already a law; there are illegal immigrants and: it's not fair to the legal ones, the country can't support all of them, and it can harm local economies (not to mention letting companies get away with giving terrible salaries; some of these illegal immigrants are willing to work for anything)

I think it had some problems only in the sense that it gave police officers too much control. You could be arrested if they 'suspected' you of being illegal (which many people said is just begging for latino discrimination). If you didn't have your documentation on hand (which most people don't, though a drivers lisence might have been enough), you would be arrested, and it would be a long, arduous process to get free if you actually had documentation back at your house.

I'm glad the supreme court struck that part out. That was Arizona going a little too far. However, what the Supreme Court kept is good; when state officers make an arrest (non-immigration related), and they have probable cause to suspect noncitizens, they now have to make steps to verify with the federal government that person's immigration status. Very fair, imo, and makes steps in the right direction.

[Tori]

Because we as a nation cannot support all of them.

Do we have enough water for everyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_s...climate_change
Nope, there are farmers in Colorado who have had to close down their wells because there isn't enough water for everyone..

Do we have enough land? I don't know about you guys, but in my hometown, more open space than I would care to see destroyed is being "developed". Yes, the U.S. 'currently' has a 'ton' of open space if you count mountains, national parks, and designated open spaces. But I hate to break it to you; Humans are not the only living things on this planet. We cannot develop every freaking square inch of land into apartment complexes and suburbia. We've already deforested much more than we should have, and infringed upon a LOT of critters' natural habitats.

Do we have enough jobs? Anyone been paying attention to our unemployment? Over 8% for over 40 months: Source: those lovely Rommney ads[/sarcasm]. We don't have enough jobs for everyone ALREADY IN the united states right now. Can we take more?

I'm gonna be blunt with this: We cannot take in the population of Mexico, or any other country. The problems in that country need to be solved, we can't just evacuate their whole country into the united states. Yes, we may have better job opertunities here, but we don't have enough of them for everyone who wants them.

We currently have a huge waiting line for becoming a legal citizen. The reason it's bottlenecking? We basically don't have room to accept everyone, so they have to limit how many people get in. And when people cut in line in front of that, that's just plain wrong. I sympathize for the parents who feel like they need to work in the US in order to provide for their families, but there are a lot of those same situations waiting the LEGAL way. The solution to the problem is not "take them all under our wing". We as a world community need to figure out how to improve conditions in some of these terrible places with corrupt governments.

The Arizona bill is about enforcing what is already a law; there are illegal immigrants and: it's not fair to the legal ones, the country can't support all of them, and it can harm local economies (not to mention letting companies get away with giving terrible salaries; some of these illegal immigrants are willing to work for anything)

I think it had some problems only in the sense that it gave police officers too much control. You could be arrested if they 'suspected' you of being illegal (which many people said is just begging for latino discrimination). If you didn't have your documentation on hand (which most people don't, though a drivers lisence might have been enough), you would be arrested, and it would be a long, arduous process to get free if you actually had documentation back at your house.

I'm glad the supreme court struck that part out. That was Arizona going a little too far. However, what the Supreme Court kept is good; when state officers make an arrest (non-immigration related), and they have probable cause to suspect noncitizens, they now have to make steps to verify with the federal government that person's immigration status. Very fair, imo, and makes steps in the right direction.

Okay, but what's the difference between "us" and "them", exactly? We're all human beings. If there isn't enough jobs or land or water, then some people simply won't have those things, and people won't come here to get those things because we wouldn't have them to give, or leave once they realize this. If some people from "another country" gets a job that a person from "this country" could've gotten, I don't really see what's wrong with that. They both deserve to support their families, nationalism be damned. If the wages are too low, raise the minimum wage or regulate the wages better. Our wage system is in desperate need for reform anyway.

And no one here is advocating that "we" should "take them all under our wing". The people who want to live here, should live here, and if they can't support themselves here, then they'll leave. If "they" are "taking" resources away from "us", oh well, because prioritization based on nation makes no sense when all life is sacred.

[Helios]

"Us" is the people who live in this nation. There are a finite amount of people who can, but humans are known to push things past the limit. I think it is fair and right for a nation to limit who becomes part of that nation and is defended (and pays for) its government. Naturally, that pool is picked out of the people who want to live in that nation, for whatever reason. But in the status quo, that pool is larger than we can support. If we basically just opened our doors to all countries, what would happen? I imagine there would be a huge influx of people, which would throw the economy out of whack. The notion that if people "can't support themselves here, they'll leave" wouldn't happen until things were way out of hand, where people would be really suffering due to lack of resources. Why? Because the 'limit' wouldn't be an intantaneous "Uh Oh, we're full, no more people!" We would hit the limit, and then exceed it before we even knew we hit it. Then there would be mass chaos and struggle for resources before finally this land was ruined enough that somewhere else (where people just came from) suddenly seems much more appealing than it was.

There's another thing. Nationalism/Patriotism is important. They are concepts built around groups of culture and socialization. Is culture important to you? It certainly is to a lot of people, most especially the people who are all for 'equal rights for everyone but maintaining our cultural differences/uniqueness'. I agree that nationalism can go way too far, but for the most part, it's based on a community's shared ideals. Those form the culture of a nation, which ideally can socialize the entire nation with the same moral system. Join, or die, as they say. A nation doesn't work very well if it's fragmented. In order to have a community (and humans are community driven creatures), I think there needs to be unity of culture, or at least socialization. At this point, we as a human race are not ready for ONE GLOBAL NATION. Until then, I think its reasonable for a community (in this case a nation) to prioritize members of the in-group to members of the out-group, because the in-group is socialized to truly be part of the nation. Just like how any individual human will prioritize their family OVER most any other human being, even though we are all equal. A nation is a form of community, and not just an arbitrary notion.

I think our focus needs to be on keeping the human population somewhat spread out, rather than having everyone flock to the most 'productive' areas. That means a focus on making everywhere a good place to live.

Since there are limits to resources in any nation, there need to be limits to population flows between nations. Moreover, in order to maintain the unity of a nation community, any individual aiming to enter needs to be willing to be socialized into that nation; including but not limited to the main language spoken, norms and mores (basically cultural and moral standards), the education system, that nation's shared heritage, and the governmental system. All of that should be involved in picking a place to live; which is why moving to another socialization system should undergo a rigorous citizenship process.

[Tori]

"Us" is the people who live in this nation. There are a finite amount of people who can, but humans are known to push things past the limit. I think it is fair and right for a nation to limit who becomes part of that nation and is defended (and pays for) its government. Naturally, that pool is picked out of the people who want to live in that nation, for whatever reason. But in the status quo, that pool is larger than we can support. If we basically just opened our doors to all countries, what would happen? I imagine there would be a huge influx of people, which would throw the economy out of whack. The notion that if people "can't support themselves here, they'll leave" wouldn't happen until things were way out of hand, where people would be really suffering due to lack of resources. Why? Because the 'limit' wouldn't be an intantaneous "Uh Oh, we're full, no more people!" We would hit the limit, and then exceed it before we even knew we hit it. Then there would be mass chaos and struggle for resources before finally this land was ruined enough that somewhere else (where people just came from) suddenly seems much more appealing than it was.

This appeal to consequences would be a lot more convincing if not for the fact the the European Union has open borders between it's member nations (http://europa.eu/legislation_summari...n/index_en.htm), and the people who used to live in Eastern Europe's migration to other parts of Europe hasn't negatively impacted their economies. In fact, there's been a lot of empirical benefits to immigration (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publi.../speech297.pdf), and the increase of the number of able-bodied workers has allowed more taxable incomes to provide for those unable to work, and has been able to blunt the impact of slowing population growth (and the consequent aging population).

There's another thing. Nationalism/Patriotism is important. They are concepts built around groups of culture and socialization. Is culture important to you? It certainly is to a lot of people, most especially the people who are all for 'equal rights for everyone but maintaining our cultural differences/uniqueness'. I agree that nationalism can go way too far, but for the most part, it's based on a community's shared ideals. Those form the culture of a nation, which ideally can socialize the entire nation with the same moral system. Join, or die, as they say. A nation doesn't work very well if it's fragmented. In order to have a community (and humans are community driven creatures), I think there needs to be unity of culture, or at least socialization. At this point, we as a human race are not ready for ONE GLOBAL NATION. Until then, I think its reasonable for a community (in this case a nation) to prioritize members of the in-group to members of the out-group, because the in-group is socialized to truly be part of the nation. Just like how any individual human will prioritize their family OVER most any other human being, even though we are all equal. A nation is a form of community, and not just an arbitrary notion.

Since there are limits to resources in any nation, there need to be limits to population flows between nations. Moreover, in order to maintain the unity of a nation community, any individual aiming to enter needs to be willing to be socialized into that nation; including but not limited to the main language spoken, norms and mores (basically cultural and moral standards), the education system, that nation's shared heritage, and the governmental system. All of that should be involved in picking a place to live; which is why moving to another socialization system should undergo a rigorous citizenship process.

If humans aren't ready for a global community, I would sure like to know what the internet is. Everyone who can communicate with one another about shared interests do so in various online communities, and they seem to get along nicely while still being from different nations.


And besides, what national virtues are you thinking will be spoiled by immigration? The United States' natural virtues are immigration and diversity. E pluribus unum or "One from many", is the phrase on the Seal of the United States. Mounted inside of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty is this sonnet:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Most people who live here aren't from here, i.e. aren't native Americans. It's almost certain that the ancestors of everyone you know including yourself are immigrants that came to this nation when it's borders were freer.

It should be noted that they didn't really "uphold" that remaining provision. They didn't say it was constitutional, they just didn't rule on it. So it's very possible that that provision will be struck down in a later case.

There's another thing. Nationalism/Patriotism is important. They are concepts built around groups of culture and socialization. Is culture important to you? It certainly is to a lot of people, most especially the people who are all for 'equal rights for everyone but maintaining our cultural differences/uniqueness'. I agree that nationalism can go way too far, but for the most part, it's based on a community's shared ideals. Those form the culture of a nation, which ideally can socialize the entire nation with the same moral system. Join, or die, as they say. A nation doesn't work very well if it's fragmented. In order to have a community (and humans are community driven creatures), I think there needs to be unity of culture, or at least socialization. At this point, we as a human race are not ready for ONE GLOBAL NATION. Until then, I think its reasonable for a community (in this case a nation) to prioritize members of the in-group to members of the out-group, because the in-group is socialized to truly be part of the nation. Just like how any individual human will prioritize their family OVER most any other human being, even though we are all equal. A nation is a form of community, and not just an arbitrary notion.

Are you suggesting that white europeans should have an easier time immigrating than people from other parts of the world?

This is a very dangerous line of thinking.

Also, cultures are made healthier by contact with other cultures, not by keeping to themselves.

[Helios]

Fear not, I am well aware of my own heritage, as well as our nations. I remember well the phrase 'Melting Pot'

Also a key phrase is "One from many"

Immigration is only the first step. The second, even more important step, is socialization. When my great grandparents came from Germany, they realized this. It was very important to them that themselves and their kids spoke English and learned American values. Why? Becasue they had decided to live in the American community, which meant they had to become part of its heritage. Not by losing their own heritage and past, but by accepting the new heritage for their future.

America has been around long enough that it has its own culture. Yes we are a country founded on immigration, but off of that we have built our own culture. And in theory, it is not a tossesd salad, it is a melting pot. That means that, while people can still remember their heritage and keep their differences, we need to operate as ONE community.

I think that the process of immigration helps that. It forces people wanting to come in to learn about the place they are going to, requires them to know the main language and culture, and allows the nation to control numbers.

Tori, you mentioned 'back when our boarders were more free' May I just revisit this point briefly: Immigration is about numbers the nation can hold. This means how many we can socialize and supply. Back in the day, it just so happened that there was a huge population loss on this continent. Totally our fault and very tragic. But people do what people do and they filled the void. There was empty space and... well in the European's view there were ample, unclaimed resources. They claimed them. Since there WASN'T any fear of population/resource problems, there was very little need to limit immigration. And I agree, if your country has openings, filling it can be quite beneficial! And in our current world, that obviously means filling it fairly, which I am all for.

I never said that European immigrants should be given priority. The immigration system needs reform to free it from bias. But, in my humble opinion, we still need a immigration system, which is basically what this debate is over. I can't change the past; when America had room for basically unlimited immigration, the Europeans were Europe biased. That is the history we have to live with. But I'm focused on the future. There are people here already. It is they who should be given priority for in this nation because they are already socialized into these United States. Then the extra room we have to fill goes to those who want to live here, in theory without discrimination.

But unlike the European Union, the United States isn't dealing with a terrifying decrease in population growth. Now, we will have problems from a potentially top-heavy population as the Baby Boomers hit retirement. But I think you miss my point here: since the nation has control over immigration, we can let more work force in when the nation needs it, and not when it doesn't. The European Union doesn't have quite the same need for governments to limit population flows because the flows are much less extrememly one sided.

And I also never said that nations need to keep to themselves. Human society is multi-tiered in community groups:

Individual - Family/Friends - Town/City - Nation - Humanity

(obviously it's much less clear cut than this, this is just a very basic outline)

In each level of this, obviously the individual has a special connection to their in-group becasue they are a part of it. But does that mean I'm saying that you should ONLY care about your in-group, at any of these levels? No, individuals interact with other individuals, friends and families are networks of relationships, cities and towns work with other cities and towns, and nations need to interact. I'm not talking closed groups, I'm just saying that human communities operate around defining groups and then having those groups interact. The nation is a powerful key in this because it is big enough to incorporate moral and cultural systems. This is an important community to define.

Looking quickly at the example of the internet as a 'global' community. Yes, that's true, but it's mostly just on the way to globalization. Doesn't mean humanity's ready for our moral and socialization systems to be the same... Just look at all the flame wars, idiocy, and problems with this 'global' network (which mind you is still separated losely into nation groups). Internet is a wonderful thing, globalization is well on its way to making all humans understand the importance of the out-group, but overall, we're still in a position where Nations fill a vital social role, and immigration is important to that role.

[Tori]

So by making immigration expensive and complicated, what virtues are being taught, and what cultural elements are being introduced that help the United States as a community? Why is there reason to believe that people from other countries won't acquiesce the virtues of participation in one's government, exercise of one's liberty and justice for all once enabled to do so? The immigration process just infringes upon the principles that make the United States a good place to live, it does not teach them.