Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Afternoon videos
Next Post: DGA whacks Brady in new TV ad
Posted in:
* Some of you may have seen this New York Times article over the weekend…
In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.
While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.
At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.
“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”
* So, I decided to ask the campaigns of Pat Quinn and Bill Brady where the candidates stood on the federal lawsuit against Arizona.
First up, Pat Quinn’s campaign…
Gov Quinn’s top priority is jobs and economic growth in Illinois. He will continue to work tirelessly to put Illinois back to work and keep us on the road to recovery. Similarly, he believes Washington DC should be focused on economic recovery for Illinois and all of the states in the nation. That said, he believes the immigration system is broken and we need to act now with a federal solution. Gov Quinn believes there needs to be comprehensive immigration reform. What we really can’t let happen is 50 separate immigration policies — or having the issue turned into an excuse for racial profiling.
This also is an economic issue for states. The federal government should be reimbursing states for costs associated with immigration enforcement.
That didn’t answer my question, so I asked whether Quinn supports the administration’s lawsuit. The reply…
Y.
I’ll take that as a “yes.”
* Brady’s campaign finally answered my question a few minutes ago, even though I sent it to them last night and followed up a few times today…
“Cracking down on illegal immigration must be addressed by the federal government. It is troubling that the Administration is spending taxpayer money and resources on a lawsuit instead of addressing the problem. The people of Arizona should not be punished for the federal government’s failure to meet its responsibilities.”
– Patty Schuh
I’ll take that as a “No.”
* Keep in mind that we have a whole lot of European illegal immigrants in this state, so the issue plays differently in Illinois than elsewhere. That could explain some of the difficulty in extracting straight answers today. Also keep in mind that over the top remarks about immigrants are always dealt with harshly here. Keep it civil or go away.
…Adding… From the Decatur Herald & Review via Progress Illinois…
State Rep. Bill Mitchell, R-Forsyth, and Adam Brown, Republican candidate for the 101st House District seat, announced Thursday that they plan to ease this burden by introducing an Arizona-style bill in the state legislature.
“Part of the reason Illinois is going broke is because of illegal immigration,” Mitchell said at a news conference at Brown’s campaign headquarters.
Mitchell said the bill will include these components: illegal immigrants who are identified by authorities will be reported to federal law enforcement for detention; the state will not pay welfare benefits to illegal immigrants; and sanctuary cities will not receive state funds. […]
“They’re criminals,” Brown said. “This is based on a fundamental issue that has been ignored by the federal and state governments.”
PI blasts away at both men and concludes…
If Mitchell and Brown don’t believe us, maybe they will listen to former Gov. Jim Edgar. Just this spring, he told reporters that it would be “disastrous political issue for the Republican Party if we are viewed as anti-immigration.” This bill would cement that image into the minds of voters everywhere.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 2:09 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Afternoon videos
Next Post: DGA whacks Brady in new TV ad
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Brady’s spokeswoman claims, “Cracking down on illegal immigration must be addressed by the federal government. It is troubling that the Administration is spending taxpayer money and resources on a lawsuit instead of addressing the problem. The people of Arizona should not be punished for the federal government’s failure to meet its responsibilities.”
How is the Obama administration failing to meet its responsibilities?
Crackdowns on employers hiring illegal aliens are at a record high.
The number of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican border (into any state, not just Arizona) is down.
Spending and manpower on the US side of the border is up.
Brady’s team is just automatically regurgitating a misinformed conservative talking point not supported by the facts.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 2:14 pm
- Rob_N - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 2:14 pm:
“How is the Obama administration failing to meet its responsibilities?”
Stuff like this happening at the southern border doesn’t help Obama’s argument:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_15405948
There are at least 5 Appeals court decisions, and 2 relevant SCOTUS decisions that say a state can enforce federal immigration law.
The Obama administration’s reaction to the Arizona law reminds me of its decisions in the Gulf oil spill where they would not waive the Jones Act to allow foreign skimming vessels. I think the federal government cannot do all things all of the time, why not take good help when you can?
Brady is absolutely correct to call out the Obama administration. He must think that the Obama administration has the wrong priorities… again. Just because he is stating the Republican position, one held by an overwhelming majority of Americans and 67% of Arizonans, doesn’t make it a bad statement, except to lock-step liberals.
That said, there would be an overwhelming consensus for comprehensive immigration reform if the borders were secured first, and the enforcement of the borders were shown to be effective. Take this statement to the bank.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 2:37 pm
The Obama administration isn’t even suing on “racial profiling”. The legal arguments they are using however are extremely weak and they are going to lose badly. And all these worries about people being harassed, no one seems to care about US citizens being harassed by illegals.
Comment by Segatari Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 2:40 pm
===Stuff like this happening at the southern border===
Somebody shoots across the border and that proves what?
===where they would not waive the Jones Act to allow foreign skimming vessels===
Proved wrong over and over.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 2:45 pm
Pat Quinn says,
“What we really can’t let happen is 50 separate immigration policies — or having the issue turned into an excuse for racial profiling.”
Let’s knock this strawman down right away. The Arizona law does not create a different immigration policy for that of the Federal Law. It quotes the Federal law, and authorizes its law enforcement professionals to police it. The Arizona law specifically prohibits racial profiling. And before anyone says that Arizona law enforcement professionals cannot be trusted to not enforce the Arizona law as written, be prepare to make that case for ANY LAW police in Arizona and any other state enforce.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 2:49 pm
This lawsuit is going to spend both federal and Arizona resources to make a political point. It is nonsense. If the law had gone into effect and was proving to be the horrible racial profiling disaster that Democrats say (hope?) it is going to be, that would change the calculus a bit.
The ridiculous part is that, for the most part, the Arizona law just mimics and enforces federal immigration law. Although federal law doesn’t criminalize it, and the state law does? If I remember that correctly, I would consider that a potential issue. The Arizona legislature has already changed wording to help prevent racial profiling, which was a wise move, and they are training police officers ahead of time to emphasize the pitfalls.
I think both sides are keeping an eye on this, and I also emphasize the point that Arizona has a completely different range and intensity of immigration issues then IL does, which is something both Quinn and Brady could/should emphasize.
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 2:52 pm
I have no idea what Brady’s campaign just said. They have the worst communications I’ve ever seen in a significant race. Amateur hour all around.
Comment by just sayin' Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 2:53 pm
Rich (and Cincy), “Somebody shoots across the border and that proves what?”
Again, a conservative talking point not supported by facts.
Conservatives are deliberately conflating Mexico’s ‘hot’ civil war over drugs with illegal immigration from Mexico.
Illegal immigrants come here to work and be able to send money back to their impovershed families and communities.
The drug cartels have very different aims.
PS — Gun violence along and near the US-side of the border is lower since Obama took office (despite the apparent increase in Fox News coverage of border gun violence since January of 2009).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/us/20crime.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all.
This storyline is like the “Summer of Shark Attacks” a few years back. Actual rates of shark vs human attacks were no higher than normal, but the news media kept covering every attack as if the sharks had gone mad.
On the other hand, violence is clearly higher on the Mexican side due to the intensifying drug war in Mexico … and, no, bullets don’t stop flying because of an invisible line … and, no, the US doesn’t have the authority to secure our border from the other side of the border anymore than Mexico or Canada do from within the US.
None of that takes away from the fact that the conservative talking points regarding violence, etc. are flat-out wrong.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 2:59 pm
Come on Rich,
Rob_N quotes a few convenient statistics with the implication that Obama is focussed like a laser beam on the border when in reality Obama only came recently to the game. Property crimes have decreased in the border area, as have deaths according to 2008 data, which is the latest available. One would expect a decrease in these crimes since many immigrants have returned home as a result of the economic downturn. However sheriffs are reporting an uptick in violent crime in the areas of human smuggling and drugs, where many crimes go unreported because of the nature of these enterprises. Obama acknowledges the problem by his decision, under pressure, to add to the number of National Guardsmen deployed to the border states.
The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters. During Hurricane Katrina five years ago, the Bush administration immediately waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case. The Obama Administration has belatedly accepted some foreign equipment for use in fighting the spill, although it still blocks ships with foreign crews.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:04 pm
From a strictly political standpoint–and in relation only to the Bill Mitchell/Adam Brown piece of this–I would imagine the GOP has some polling data showing the issue works around Decatur/central Illinois (or at least in that HD). If they’re shooting from the hip on an issue like that they’re getting some bad advice.
Comment by Strangelove Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:11 pm
Why is Cincinnatus so obsessed with Mexico? I thought most of the illegal immigrants in Chicago were from Poland.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:13 pm
“Part of the reason Illinois is going broke is because of illegal immigration,” that’s a pretty small part there Bill. No wonder the Republican’s in the legislature can’t figure out how to get us out of the budget mess, they don’t even know how we got there. Meanwhile the Democrat’s don’t have the political will to fix what they’ve created.
I would listen to Edgar, losing the Hispanic vote will be disastrous for the Republican’s for decades. Bill and Adam are just acting silly.
Comment by Ahoy Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:16 pm
How much is it costing Illinois to confer “Illinois resident” tuition rates to illegal aliens attending state sponsored colleges and universities? Why is it justifiable or politically correct to grant this type of tuition break to non-citizens while demanding more money from American citizens from Indiana or Iowa who wish to attend college in Illinois?
For the purposes of discussion, I would like to see some actual dollar amounts.
When I visit a government building where a WIC office is located, it seems as if almost all of the applicants in line are Hispanics. How much does this program cost? How many of these individuals are receiving benefits while working under the table for cash?
Truthfully, given the laxity of the government offices administering the programs, how can we blame any immigrant for exploiting the system? The welfare bureaucrats seem to be willing to give the store away.
Comment by Honest Abe Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:17 pm
HA, Brady voted for that bill.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:18 pm
I fully echo Cinc’s 2:49 comment, with the caveats that the AZ law criminalizes illegal immigration (up to a felony) and uses trespassing language. US can deport them, so trespassing was AZ’s way of dealing with their inability to deport, but it still creates legal wrinkles.
@Rob_N:
“Illegal immigrants come here to work and be able to send money back to their impovershed families and communities.”
Yes, one sub-group does this, and it empowers border coyotes/smugglers, makes them targets for drug runners and cartels, gives unethical businesses leverage to abuse them, and throws wrinkles all over the US economy.
You are also ignoring those who are purely drug smuggling (a much smaller but much more dangerous sub-group) and ignoring how all of them are operating outside of the legal system. And, most dangerously, you are ignoring an even smaller, but even more dangerous, sub-group that comes here to kill Americans and wage war on us.
I’m not disagreeing that many conservatives seem willing to demonize hard-working, desperate people (which covers a good many of the border runners in AZ), but neither am I willing to let you gloss over a great many severe problems.
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:20 pm
- The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act -
Repeating something doesn’t make it true Cinci, this is a flat out lie.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:21 pm
Skeeter-
Because the discussion centered around the Arizona law. I am not obsessed with Mexico, it just happens to be the trigger for the debate. I am a bit surprised at your obsession with Polish immigrants. I’m sure it does not reflect on any racism on your part.
I am a bit obsessed with ILLEGAL immigration no matter where the ILLEGAL immigrant is from.
This issue should unite both left and right, liberal and conservative. I am strongly for LEGAL immigration, both for permanent residency and temporary seasonal workers. Human capital is the most important thing in a society and needs to be nurtured. But lawlessness is just as sure to take a society down.
Secure the borders, north, south, east and west. THEN come up with a legal method to allow the flow of capital, human and otherwise.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:22 pm
Cincy,
“A few convenient statistics”?
Sucks when you find out the truth doesn’t support your preconceived notions, eh?
The statistics are neither convenient nor inconvenient (nor are these facts “liberal” or “conservative”). They simply are what they are.
But, knowing the truth, one does wonder what the real motivation is behind the conservatives’ work in Arizona. For that, you have to look at who sponsored the bill and who wrote it — both of whom have ties to white supremacists, neo-Nazis and the like.
And this is the bill you and others are defending, hopefully without knowledge of its origins in white supremacist quarters.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:24 pm
=== How many of these individuals are receiving benefits while working under the table for cash? ===
This is problem is the effect of the anti immigration laws forcing this work force to operate under the table. provide some safe harbors and the vast majority of these folks would pay taxes along with the rest of us.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:26 pm
@Skeeter: because the discussion started over AZ’s bill, and AZ is a border state with Mexico, and because over 50% of illegal immigrants to the US are from Mexico. Not the most dangerous 50%, I would argue, but still the largest portion.
@Ahoy:
Republicans in the legislature can’t fix the budget mess because they aren’t in power and they have no power.
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:28 pm
Liandro,
I’m not ignoring anything.
I quite clearly stated that conservatives were conflating all those things under the mantra of “illegal immigration”.
To wit, I didn’t ignore “unethical businesses” with “leverage to abuse them”. I stated that the Obama administration is actually setting records for investigations into just such unethical businesses.
Moreover, as for your remark of an “even more dangerous, sub-group that comes here to kill Americans and wage war on us” … I presume you mean al Quaida backed terrorists, not Mexican day laborers and housecleaners.
It’s a heckuvalot easier for terrorists to fly into our country (or into Canada and then drive over) than it would be for them to walk across the desert into Arizona. Again, that’s based on what Cincy calls “convenient statistics” (ie, reality).
I wasn’t ignoring them either. They just weren’t part of the conversation til you brought it up.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:31 pm
“HA, Brady voted for that bill.”
Excellent point. That was HB 60, passed in May ‘03. Gave in-state tuition rates to immigrants here illegally. Bill Brady was a YES. Here’s the bill and history:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=0060&GAID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=195&SessionID=3&SpecSess=
Comment by just sayin' Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:31 pm
Given the wishy-washy responses by both candidates, the issue appears to be something they don’t really want to deal with this election.
GOPers like Edgar are wise to drain the emotion out of this issue and tread carefully. That’s the lesson of Pres. Pete Wilson and the former GOP stranglehold on California’s electoral votes.
It’s not like the GOP growers, homebuilders and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn’t want that cheap labor.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:32 pm
The whole Jones Act cannard is nothing but an attempt from Nutjobistan to make the Obama administration look bad. It has shown to be false over and over. I don’t know what’s worse: The fact that some seem to lap up this stuff as if its some sort of manna from heaven or the fact that even in the fact of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people keep believing these outright lies.
Comment by Deep South Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:36 pm
This election season, a bunch of GOPers, most notably John McVain, are in denial of their past support of amnesty. They see the writing on the wall this year. Brady has to walk it back. Locally, State Sen Reitz said in a constituent letter that IL ought to have a law like AZ’s.
I didn’t know IL had a lot of European illegal aliens, not that there’s no such thing. But it does put to reality that cracking down on illegal immigration is not just targeting Latin Americans.
Hey, what do Brady and Quinn, both Catholics I believe, think of U of I firing a Catholic instructor for conveying Catholic moral thought in a class on Catholic thought? Does either man support religious suppression at state Uni’s?
Comment by Peggy SO-IL Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:36 pm
Illegal aliens have no right to be in this country,which is why they’re called such.The Feds generally ignore them since they also illegally vote.so Arizona responds to the Arizona illegal alien social and fiscal problems by duplicating the laws the Feds won’t enforce.Legitimate immigration is important to this country,illegal aliens from any foreign country in this country are criminals. Both Quinn and Brady are mugwumping
Comment by nick Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:37 pm
===Republicans in the legislature can’t fix the budget mess because they aren’t in power and they have no power.===
So what are they doing there? Why are we paying them? Maybe they should do us taxpayers a favor and go home.
Comment by Deep South Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:38 pm
Doesn’t the word ILLEGAL bother people any more?
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:39 pm
I think we are harkening back to one of the big issues that faced the nation before the Civil War. States Rights vs Federal Rights. There are currently two situations where the conflict is now an issue.
One in Arizona where the State has passed a law to protect it’s citizens. No matter what your feelings are about the fine points of the law or the problem I think everyone has to admit there is a problem. When private and public property can not be accessed for fear of violence then something has to be done. The State has now pushed the focus of the Federal Government to this issue. Hopefully dialogue will begtin and a resolution amenable to all will result. The thing I find irritating most of all is that once again the Democratic party’s biggest concern isn’t the violance and deaths and loss of property and values, it’s we have to do whatever it takes to cover our #$% and get re-elected.
The second place the issue is surfacing is in Louisiana where that Governor has said that if the Feds won’t get going on protecting the Marshes from the oil spill the State will.
I find both of these Governors’ positions refreshing. They are saying we are not going to settle for the status quo, we are not going to wait for the Federal Government to plod along until it finally gets to where it should have been months ago. We are going to do something now!
Comment by Irish Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:39 pm
- Deep South - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:36 pm:
“The whole Jones Act cannard is nothing but an attempt from Nutjobistan to make the Obama administration look bad. It has shown to be false over and over. I don’t know what’s worse: The fact that some seem to lap up this stuff as if its some sort of manna from heaven or the fact that even in the fact of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people keep believing these outright lies.”
I posed a question, answer it.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:41 pm
Cincy..the only questions you have posed seemed to do with illegal immigration not the Jones Act. Maybe I missed it..try again?
Comment by Deep South Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:45 pm
- I posed a question, answer it. -
You also posted a lie, retract it.
And to answer your question, of course illegal means something. Maybe the companies and people that hire illegal immigrants should be investigated and arrested. Maybe then they wouldn’t hire them anymore. And maybe if there weren’t any jobs here for illegal immigrants, there wouldn’t be any incentive for them to come. But you’re right, building giant fences and searching those who look suspicious makes more sense.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:49 pm
@Rob_N:
Whether they come to work, or to run drugs, or to execute an escaped cartel member, these issues do fall under the umbrella of illegal immigration. Moreover, a porous border is going to become an avenue for lone terrorists at some point–possibly even with cartel support (although it would seem foolish for the cartels to risk that much attention, I would think). Expired visas also come into a discussion of illegal immigration, although not so much into a discussion of AZ’s law.
I agree with your point that cartel violence and border running should be mostly separate discussions. There is some natural overlap, but not as much as the “demonizing” I referred to would indicate. I do think we should be keeping an eye out for any uptick in that overlap, though. And, far more so in AZ than here, human traffickers and drug runners are a serious issue, especially the ones that don’t count into crime hard stats (i.e. those that aren’t caught).
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:49 pm
Irish (and Cincy) –
Per the Constitution of the United States of America, immigration (legal and illegal) is a Federal matter.
The Feds do take care of illegal immigration — some Administrations better than others. Reagan “took care of” illegal immigration by supporting amnesty. There are even audio clips of him in the 80s saying so repeatedly and forcefully.
Others “took care of it” by ignoring it.\
Obama is taking care of it by boosting investigations into unscrupulous companies that hire illegal immigrants, increasing border patrols, strengthening border security and more.
Yet you call these facts “inconvenient”.
PS - The Jones Act talking points are indeed canards. There are several foreign ships and foreign workers assisting in the Gulf, coordinated through the US Coast Guard. They weren’t kept at bay due to the Jones Act but instead because the Coast Guard took the time to try and get personnel and equipment into the best places they could. Shame on them for trying their hardest to make the best of a $%@# situation.
Shame on the cons for attacking the Coast Guard with this drivel while their elected leaders support BP — even going so far as to apologize for “a Chicago-style shakedown”.
But if a foreign vessel has no use in the Gulf (ie, wrong equipment) it would just be in the way. It seems that some conservatives would rather have those ships be in the way — at that point they would flip their Catch-22 talking point to decry something along the lines of ‘inept mayhem caused by an uncoordinated response that is willy-nilly bringing in every ship it can, even if the equipment won’t help, just so the Obama administration can look busy…’ (In fact, I think some con talking heads have been saying junk like that anyway.)
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:58 pm
Liandro,
Look up the definition of the word “immigrant” sometime.
Someone popping over a border to run drugs is not “immigrating”, per the definition. They’re trafficking drugs.
And conservatives’ miscomprehension of the word “immigrant” doesn’t change the fact that both violence and illegal immigration are down.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:02 pm
It is interesting that anyone who opposes illegal immigration is immediately labelled as anti-immigration.
When those protesting the Arizona law hyperventilate about the potential for profiling, why would that be the only time law enforcement has the opportunity to profile?
There is a claim that 1 in 10 Arizona residents is illegal, I ‘ll bet there are communities in Illinois that match that ratio of exceed it. The social burdens placed on the legal members are reaching levels unseen before. It cannot remain unaddressed foreve.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:04 pm
I’m fascinated by the obsession w/ “ILLEGAL” when, in these circumstances, it’s relevance is no more significant than whether the speed limit is 55 or 65. We are not discussing “morality” as in “it is illegal to murder”. Rather, this is purely a matter of arbitrary decision-making which, I believe, is largely influence by racism–not just in the cry for walls and enforcement of existing law, etc., but in the refusal to work toward a reasonable compromise to accommodate and legalize everyone present in the U.s. Given that the in-bound migration is capitalism in its purest form, I love listening to the most rabid capitalists have the biggest hissy-fits about the immigrants who are working for the worst wages in the worst jobs fattening the wallets of the fat cats who are benefiting from Bush’s fat-cat tax cuts…the same people who send the U.S. manufacturing jobs to places like…oh…Mexico. So get off this racist anti-immigrant rant cloaked at a phantasmagorical obsession w/ the “ILLEGAL”.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:07 pm
Rob N - Went back through my post several times, didn’t find the word “inconvenient.”
And to comment on the rest of your reply. “What?”
Comment by Irish Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:07 pm
- Small Town Liberal - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:49 pm:
- I posed a question, answer it. -
You also posted a lie, retract it.
What are you talking about? The question was about the Dutch offer of help immediately after the oil spill. When were they allowed to join the Gulf clean-up?
As far as the Coast Guard delays, this reminds me of the delayed/restricted approval of Jindal’s sand bars (which just today have been reported to be effective). This administration was unable or unwilling to think out of the box when it came to its Gulf oil spill response, and showed a lack of being able to prioritize its response to that situation. I used this as a comparison to their Arizona law response, which also shows a lack of prioritization and political reaction to a situation that required an apolitical response.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:10 pm
Irish,
My reply was both in light of your comment “The thing I find irritating most of all is that once again the Democratic party’s biggest concern isn’t the violance and deaths and loss of property and values, it’s we have to do whatever it takes to cover our #$% and get re-elected.”
…and Cincinattus’ several posts in this thread, notably his claim that my citations of facts were “convenient statistics”.
(Yes, I have a typo there. That should read that Cincy called them “convenient” instead of “inconvenient”… The implication being that I and others who quote facts are somehow twisting reality instead of acknowledging it.)
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:14 pm
- Doesn’t the word ILLEGAL bother people any more? -
I was answering this question.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:15 pm
Liando and Cincy:
I raised the issue for the reason that it appears clear that much of the anti-immigration anger is based on skin color.
In Chicago, it is prety clear that there is a very large group of Polish and other Eastern European illegal immigrants. Not a word is spoken of them though by the anti-immigration people.
Instead, the focus is on Mexicans. Yes, that is racism. When people in Illinois ignore the Polish illegals but fixate on Mexican illegals, there is no other explanation.
Further, the idea that illegal immigration is costing us so much money is a farce. Most work at low paying jobs, PAY SALES TAX, and despite what people claim, few illegal immigrants take any “welfare” dollars at all.
In any case, since “welfare” is a minute portion of the budget anyway, it hardly can be considered a major problem.
Sure our borders should be secure, but the idea that doing so will lead so some sort of economic recovery is laughable. But it does appeal to the folks who don’t like Mexicans.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:18 pm
Rob N - So you are taking exception with me being irritated that the Democratic concern is the upcoming election? Like their concewrn here in Illinois with the upcoming election instead of the fiscal disaster?
Comment by Irish Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:19 pm
Quinn’s initial statement to Rich is correct and best for Quinn to take at this time. Unfortunately politics forces the Governor to side with the Federal government however in regards to it’s decision to sue Arizona, but not Rhode Island, and it’s decision to sue Arizona based on concern over federalism issues, not racial profiling. Quinn is stuck here, and his first reply is the best one he can make of a bad political position for him to be in.
Brady doesn’t need to even answer Rich’s question because as the Republican, he isn’t hampered by the White House’s criminalization of Arizona and the actions taken by the Federal government. Having had his spokesperson answer the question as she did was appropriate for Brady.
Whenever an administration sues a state government instead of taking other actions, it shows that the administration has failed. There have been plenty of times when state and federal governments have worked together to avoid these kinds of legal conflicts in the past.
We now know that another state has been doing what Arizona has not yet started to do, for the past few years. Rhode Island’s actions aren’t even state law. Unbelievably, if any state government is open to the charges of racial profiling and abuse, it would be Rhode Island, since Arizona’s law that hasn’t yet gone into effect btw, has clearly been amended to avoid this kind of legal situation.
The federal lawsuit is a loser, and this is why it has dominated the governor’s conference. The fact that this is an issue, is an admission by the Administration that it handled this situation poorly.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:21 pm
“That was HB 60, passed in May ‘03. Gave in-state tuition rates to immigrants here illegally. …”
I believe that bill was focused on the CHILDREN of illegal immigrants attending public schools now already. I suppose we could make it harder for those kids to better themselves and make themselves productive citizens in the interest of preserving a “pure” ideological stand that calls for deportation of every last illegal alien.
In practical terms, though, while I’m conservative, I favor making these students productive taxpayers - whether their parents were or not - while someone comes up with a workable solution to the problem of the large, resident illegal immigrant population.
The extremes on both sides of this issue are absolutely ridiculous.
Comment by Amuzing Myself Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:22 pm
Inconvenient truths:
A June 18 document released by National Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen and a June 15 press release from the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center state: “Currently 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations as part of the response in the Gulf of Mexico.”
David Matsuda, acting Maritime administrator, stated in June 17 congressional testimony that “Even though twenty-three percent of the vessels responding to the oil spill are not U.S.-flag, none of these are known to be in violation of any U.S. law or regulation. Vessels that do not call upon points in the United States are not in violation of the Jones Act.”
Comment by Deep South Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:24 pm
“Whenever an administration sues a state government instead of taking other actions, it shows that the administration has failed. There have been plenty of times when state and federal governments have worked together to avoid these kinds of legal conflicts in the past.”
What nonsense.
Arizona elected officials tried to score cheap political points by demonizing Mexicans.
What exactly SHOULD have been the White House respons, VMan?
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:25 pm
Once again, VMan you are the BEST! I wish you were a candidate for office, I might be excited about voting!
Comment by fan of cap fax Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:27 pm
Cinci you must be Fox News (un)informed. The Jones Act applies to the first 3 miles from the shore, the spill is 52 miles out and not one country has asked or needed a waiver. On AZ I wish there was a compromise where every person could be run through a database for citizenship/employment status not just “resonable suspicion”. I doubt Steve Nash would be held until he can produce his papers.
Comment by Hurricane Bob Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:29 pm
How is the AZ law any different than Chicago and other “sanctuary cities” creating local immigration policies? Why is the DOJ only taking action against one and not the other?
Comment by grand old partisan Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:31 pm
–Whenever an administration sues a state government instead of taking other actions, it has failed…–
How do you figure in this case? The administration failed to prevent Arizona from passing the law? How were they supposed to do that?
Anyway, everybody sues everybody all the time over issues big and small. Have Illinois and Kentucky ever resolved their Ohio River island disputes? That went on for decades.
Anyway, it’s a lawsuit, who cares? Now Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Eisenhower — they knew how to deal with states that thought they could usurp the constitution. Especially Lincoln.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:31 pm
Irish -
Have you failed to notice that the Republicans’ concern is also the upcoming election?
In fact, the upcoming election has defined both their national and state strategy for the past 18 months as the Party of No.
Springfield Republicans have offered no solutions and in fact have literally created potemkin issues out of nothing at all (look up Rich’s posts on last year’s goofy parliamentary moves and subsequent GOP robocalls).
DC Republicans have done the same.
Both Republicans and Democrats are made up of groups of people who are either elected officials or hope to be elected.
PS - As I’ve pointed out several times, “the violance and deaths and loss of property and values” is actually down under Obama specifically because of his stricter enforcement of immigration and border security, which would seem to negate Arizona conservatives’ rationale for writing and passing their law.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:34 pm
“How is the AZ law any different than Chicago and other “sanctuary cities” creating local immigration policies? Why is the DOJ only taking action against one and not the other?”
I don’t know. Maybe because Chicago is not locking people up until they prove they are innocent. That may have something to do with it.
I d
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:34 pm
“Maybe because Chicago is not locking people up until they prove they are innocent”
Under Federal law, immigrants are always responsible for having documentation of their status on them at all times. If a federal agent asks for it, and you don’t have it, you will be locked up. All AZ has done is explicitly empower local law enforcement to do the same. Maybe you still have a problem with that, but it’s not as outrageous or unusual as you make it out to be.
Comment by grand old partisan Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:38 pm
Grand Old Partisan asks, “How is the AZ law any different than Chicago and other “sanctuary cities” creating local immigration policies? Why is the DOJ only taking action against one and not the other?”
Because you have no idea what a sanctuary city actually is.
The term, and legal ordinances and laws, arose during the Cold Way. Heck, Republican enclaves like Salt Lake City were sanctuary cities.
Any guess as to why American cities would climb all over themselves during the Cold War to declare they were sanctuary cities for immigrants?
Here’s a clue — they wanted Russians and Eastern Europeans to escape communism and come to American sanctuaries under political asylum.
Yet another perfectly legit concept that modern conservatives have perverted to mean something completely different than its original intent.
And no amount of blustery malinformed “think tank” hyperbole from modern conservatives can change what sanctuary cities were originally intended to be.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 4:51 pm
Does Illinois’ agricultural economy rely on migrant workers? How much are they paid for their labor? What about all those toiling in the food service or hospitality industry? Is there anyone out there who thinks that people who earn such dismal wages are here “legally”? How much would “legal” persons need to be paid to perform those jobs? Could our economy survive the higher prices consumers would have to pay to cover the new costs? I don’t think so. This is why I don’t think it would benefit the state or the nation in any way to
Comment by chuckT Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 5:09 pm
–Per the Constitution of the United States of America, immigration (legal and illegal) is a Federal matter.– (comment @3:58)
Why does the government not also consider the self-proclaimed “Sanctuary Cities” to be an affront to the primacy of the Federal Government’s role in immigration and take action, is a very good question. (And, Skeeter, you’re missing the point.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 5:17 pm
Maybe because it is not so much the “affront to primacy” that matters, as much as the “locking up people until they can prove themselves innocent” thing that matters. That’s the point.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 5:20 pm
Gawd Responsa… Did ya read my post on what sanctuary cities actually are?
The Federal gov’t can grant political asylum.
The various sanctuary cities around the country welcomed those seeking such asylum from the Feds.
Why conservatives continue to simply make hooey up is an even better question.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 5:27 pm
Skeeter, with all respect, if you’ve read the lawsuit or a good legal precis of it you know that the suit is not about “locking people up.” If that were the main focus, the DOJ would have no doubt waited until there was a case of some actual people being improperly “locked up” under the AZ law and then sue AZ on those violations. Locking people up is the popular internet narrative but that is not the reason the DOJ gave for initiating a federal lawsuit against AZ.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 5:44 pm
Those folks from across the border are by land large just moms and dads like you and I, trying to raise their kids and survive. The shameful part is that because they come over without going thru formal processes, they become slaves to abusive hiring. The fastest way to curtail the immigration is to fine and arrest the bosses doing illegal hiring. Obama’s admionistration is doing something a little different from previous ones, where the focus was on “Untouchables” SWAT-team-like raids and roundups at facilities. The Obama team is instead using forensic accountants to match up the company paperwork with federal databases, and finding way more violations more quickly than physical raids. Much easier to send one car to pick up the CEO for questioning as to why all these workers don’t have tax paperwork. And I think that’s the right play. Arrest those boss types and the word gets around fast.
There is a lot of misery involved in this, no matter what you do. In one of the above cases, hundreds of undocumented families lost their living and in quick succession, their cars got repossessed and their homes, foreclosed, and I don’t know that even half of them got any kind of transitional aid to re-settle or migrate back. There is going to be grief and pain when suddenly the rules change… or start being enforced.
The one thing I do believe is that the Constitution doesn’t specify only citizens have human rights. We didn’t ask them to come here, but we allowed the conditions that brought them, so we as a society are responsible for setting things right on all counts. If they are willing to go thru the legitimization process, they are welcome to stay here. If they are not, we have a duty to see to their comfort and safety until they can be repatriated.
This is too important an issue to leave to “Internet Tough-Guys” ™
Comment by Gregor Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 7:16 pm
Man, I’d love to see some Rep. introduce the same bill in Illinois, just to see how the bumhonkin’ elected officials deal with it. I’d pay money just to see that.
Comment by Park Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 7:32 pm
@Rob_N:
Reaching for historical or dictionary definitions when we are clearly discussing legal status, not historical status, is just plain not going to work. That hypothetical drug trafficker you mention can pull out his dictionary if they catch him, but it’s not going to help. He still has immigration issues (though perhaps the least of his worries by that pointed).
Your “miscomprehension” (to use your word) of legal status doesn’t change the fact that our legal, social, and economic systems would all be better served by getting a handle on illegal immigration.
@Pluto: agreed.
@Skeeter:
“Arizona elected officials tried to score cheap political points by demonizing Mexicans.” I can’t agree with you. I admit I am wary of the bill’s language, and the rhetoric some groups use, but the interviews and articles I saw with actual “elected officials” were very knowledgeable and nuanced. They are attempting to deal with a long-term problem down there. I do agree, though, that demonizing and xenophobia can be a problem for some groups.
As for “locking people up”: jeez. Nobody has been locked up, and you are just stoking fears. Decrying police actions that haven’t occurred is a bit much. A sanctuary city discussion has a lot of interesting points to it, but you didn’t add to that with your melodrama.
Finally, Skeeter, save the race-baiting. Not only am I Latino, I am the grandson of a Mexican immigrant. The hard-working, taking-care-of-my-family kind. We are primarily discussing AZ’s law, and the vast majority of their immigration issues come from Mexico. We’re not going to ignore that because you’re supposedly offended.
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 8:08 pm
Obviously any nation has the inherent right to control its citizenship requirements and its borders.
It is offensive that Mexico dictates policy to the U.S.
Comment by Todd Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 8:50 pm
- Rob_N - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:58 pm:
Irish (and Cincy) –
Per the Constitution of the United States of America, immigration (legal and illegal) is a Federal matter.
Creation of immigration laws is the responsibility of the Federal government. In all seven instances that have been litigated, including 2 SCOTUS decisions, the courts have ruled that local governments can participate in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. That is SEVEN cases adjudicated in Federal Appeals or higher courts, all of which ruled that local law enforcement were able to police Federal law. Arizona did not create an immigration law, they simply provide procedures for enforcement of the law in their jurisdiction.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 8:54 pm
Liandro says, “Your “miscomprehension” (to use your word) of legal status doesn’t change the fact that our legal, social, and economic systems would all be better served by getting a handle on illegal immigration.”
You’re completely missing my point, seemingly deliberately.
We could take care of the illegal immigration problem right now by declaring that all Mexican citizens (or pick any nationality or global region) who want to come to the US to work in legal professions are free to do so as long as they enter through a recognized US-based port of entry.
Then all 12 million illegal immigrants are suddenly here legally.
Wow.
We’d still have an issue with drug trafficking because it’s a different issue from illegal immigration.
–
Todd says, “It is offensive that Mexico dictates policy to the U.S.”
What planet are you on?
There are no Mexican nationals in the Senate, House, Supreme Court or White House “dictating policy” to our sovereign nation.
Grow up.
–
Cincy says, “Arizona did not create an immigration law, they simply provide procedures for enforcement of the law in their jurisdiction.”
That is the heart of the Federal suit against Arizona, isn’t it?
We shall see what the courts decide.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 9:04 pm
- Rob_N - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 5:27 pm:
“The various sanctuary cities around the country welcomed those seeking such asylum from the Feds.”
In an argument similar to the one I am making that Arizona can choose to enforce Federal immigration law, the flip side is that a state can choose to NOT enforce a Federal law (not in conflict with the Constitution). What this means is that a Sanctuary City is okay (if that is what the local citizens want), and if the Federal government wants to enforce federal immigration policy in those Sanctuary Cities, it can. The local government cannot stop the Feds, and the Feds cannot force the locals to enforce.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 9:20 pm
Found this on a left-wing blog where the lawsuit was discussed. If you can read through the “police-are-assumed-racists” tone of the second poster without giving up, there are actual legal issues.
(First poster) “The issue is that the AZ law is in complete concurrence and support of the federal law as written and implemented specifically via 287(g).
“IF the AZ law extended or usurped federal law, then sue and preempt away.
“Effectively, the AZ law is on par with the existing 287(g) MOAs.”
(Second poster) “Um, no the law is not. First, the AZ law criminalizes presence without documents, while (if you’d read the complaint you’d have seen that) the feds not only do not criminalize presence without documents but also explicitly allow immigrants in some categories (humanitarian refugees, political asylees, inter alia) to be present without documents and does not provide documents for them.
“Second, the AZ law mandates (through the private damages action against unzealous enforcers) arrest and charging of people whose papers do not meet the standard some idiot county mountie decides to set. By way of example I, as a native-born US citizen, would not have any suitable papers if the idiot county mountie decided my drivers’ license (or even my US passport) might be a forgery. And you can bet the whole “suspected of presenting forged documents” angle will be a huge, truck-sized hole through which the AZ police will stuff anyone and everyone that they want to arrest who nonetheless presents papers.
“And, of course, since immigration proceedings are civil proceedings where there is no right to (government-paid) counsel, no or limited compulsory process, and similarly limited rights, you are going to see native-born US citizens (poor, uneducated ones at first) being deported on the basis of some idiot county mountie deciding to arrest them for being an illegal immigrant even though they never left the country of their birth before. ”
What about that?
Comment by Lefty Lefty Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 10:21 pm
Cincy, Did you not read (or not comprehend) the purpose behind sanctuary cities?
People fleeing communist dictatorships and seeking FEDERAL political asylum were able to go to those cities while the FEDERAL process worked itself out.
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 10:56 pm
Back to Illinois.
I liked what Quinn has said here because he is in a can’t win situation. For Brady, this issue is a “gimme”. The reason this is an issue is due to a Federal government failing to step in when it was clear to all that stepping in was needed, and then stepping in when it wasn’t needed. These are two huge strikes against an Administration in over it’s head on this issue.
As to Federal lawsuits, it is rather ironic that the man who repeatedly claimed he would use diplomacy with our enemies overseas, appears to be unable to do something similarly diplomatic within his own party and country. It was unnecessary to sue Arizona. Their state government is bipartisan. Their last governor works for this Administration in this very capacity. Napolitano of all people can be extensively quoted over the past decade regarding the tragedy her state suffers under. For her to remain silent as the current occupant of the Arizona governor’s office repeats the very same arguments Napolitano made, but is actively ignored by Napolitano and Obama is rather shocking, wouldn’t you agree?
Arizona has been begging for Federal actions concerning this very real tragedy. Instead of assisting and working with their bipartisan state government, this Administration has instead chosen to criminalize and misrepresent our fellow Americans when out of sheer necessity, they start enforcing Federal law.
Quinn needs to back away from this entirely. Rich’s question was not addressed earlier by either candidate because it is an ugly mess and a political loser for Quinn. That is why it is an issue.
The entire situation is sad and entirely unnecessary. If the Federal government had done it’s job before this time, we wouldn’t have been seeing concerned citizens volunteering to do their jobs. If the Federal government didn’t criminalize Arizona, while utterly ignoring the exact situation in Rhode Island this discussion wouldn’t be happening. It is a huge screw up out of Washington, coming and going.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:02 pm
Vanilla,
Please explain why you think the Administration “failed to step in when it was clear to all that stepping in was needed”…
The Obama Administration had already increased spending and manpower on border patrol (even before the recent addition of even more National Guard troops) and has already increased Federal investigations into unethical US-based employers which had been hiring illegal immigrants.
In fact, the Feds have had record-breaking numbers in the area of employer crackdowns to the tune of millions of dollars in cumulative fines. That’s something no previous administration had done.
So, again, please explain where they “failed” as you put.
Are you suggesting we start a third war and invade Mexico to stop random drug lords’ bullets from sailing too far north?
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:38 pm