Patterico's Pontifications

5/3/2010

Two States and Federal Immigration Law

Filed under: Immigration — DRJ @ 8:11 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Which State is subverting American federal immigration law — Arizona or New York? William A. Jacobson has the answer.

— DRJ

35 Responses to “Two States and Federal Immigration Law”

  1. How horrible that NY won’t deport LEGAL immigrants for minor drug offenses.

    AJB (3008d4)

  2. Has AJB ever been anything short of fundamentally dishonest?

    JD (150c8d)

  3. Legal immigrants know that if they break the law and are convicted they can be deported.

    Do we really want to get into a debate about the wisdom of our drug laws when for now those are the law and the immigrants know they are breaking the law?

    But this idea that laws we don’t like should just be ignored is wrong. Get the law changed if it’s so bad. If Patterson doesn’t like immigrants being deported he has more power than most people to get the law changed.

    MU789 (13091a)

  4. I’m sorry to disagree, DRJ. AEDPA was given retroactive effect and a legal immigrant who was convicted of possession of marijuana twenty years ago can be deported. And it is not limited to just drug offenses. It is a nightmare to criminal defense attorneys who, making a plea deal for probation, have to choose between keeping their client out of jail and subjecting him to deportation.

    nk (db4a41)

  5. nk,

    Whether you agree with it or not, it sounds like you are confirming what Prof. Jacobson claims — that New York is altering existing immigration law.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  6. No. New York is telling the federal government that it decides what the punishment for violation of its laws will be. The deportation would be based on a conviction of violation of a New York state law. New York is saying to the AEDPA, “Well, we only thought he’d just go to prison for a little. If you’re going to be like that, we’ll just unconvict him.” There’s nothing wrong with that.

    nk (db4a41)

  7. New York’s Governor is saying deportation in this kind of case is wrong, even though immigration law provides for it. How is that not using the Governor’s pardon to subvert immigration laws?

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  8. I would call it “Don’t beat my kid more just because you saw me beat him this once”.

    Whether Patterson is doing what the people of New York want is a different question. We had a similar problem with a runaway governor who emptied death row here in Illinois.

    There are a lot of federal laws that piggyback on state convictions. Among them, the right to own firearms. I see nothing wrong with a state pardon so a reformed felon can own a gun and I see nothing wrong with a state pardon so a reformed immigrant can stay in the country.

    nk (db4a41)

  9. It feels right, therefore it is the just and moral position.

    JD (150c8d)

  10. nk:

    I see nothing wrong with a state pardon so a reformed felon can own a gun and I see nothing wrong with a state pardon so a reformed immigrant can stay in the country.

    Clearly Paterson has the power to do what he’s doing and maybe his motivation is merciful. However, it would be nice if a Governor (or President) would follow guidelines so there is some assurance the person who gets the pardon deserves it.

    But this is a blanket pardon for everyone in a certain class of persons, and blanket pardons subvert the law. It’s nullification of existing law by an executive.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  11. Well, yes, JD. Not hurting people should feel right. I don’t know about just and moral. That’s above my paygrade.

    nk (db4a41)

  12. nk:

    You’re a smart guy. Are you saying that Arizona’s law is right because it’s protecting the property rights of individuals who happen to live in that state?

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  13. The main reason I don’t like Arizona’s law, Ag 80, is because of the ID requirement. The rest, such as a private citizen being able to compel a police officer to enforce it, is secondary but it is important to a lot of people. I think what bothers me most about it is that just a handful of US citizens and legal immigrants will be harassed and the vast majority of us will just not care because it will not happen to us.

    nk (db4a41)

  14. when talking about the budget in radio interviews, Paterson comes across as the only sane man in Albany. He emphasizes that we don’t have the dough and the Legislature either does nothing or piles on more spending. Then he goes and pulls a bonehead stunt like this. Dave, it’s time for you to go.

    sam (5ef311)

  15. Maybe he hopes this will help him with voters who don’t appreciate his fiscal attitude.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  16. Comment by nk โ€” 5/3/2010 @ 10:22 pm

    “…the ID requirement…”
    nk, have you ever had to transit through a Border Patrol internal check-point?
    If they deign to stop you, they will usually ask such things as where are you travelling from & to, where were you born, up to and including a request for ID.
    We here in the SouthWest experience these inconveniences (when traffic on a four-lane divided “freeway” is backed up five-miles or so, these are not just incidental stops) without ever passing into or out of Mexico.
    At least in AZ, when they get to the point of asking for ID, it is because you’ve already done something in violation of the VC, or MC, or worse, not just driving down the highway to see an old class-mate.
    I, personally, think you’re being unreasonable on this matter, if not a bit paranoid.

    AD - RtR/OS! (ad3aba)

  17. Well, if it’s the ID that bothers nk, then he must also object to the federal law that requires resident aliens to carry their “green card” with them at all times. That law was signed by F.D.R. back in 1940.

    And every state requires that you carry a valid driver’s license when driving. If my information is correct, forty two states require you to show a copy of your birth certificate the first time you get a driver’s license.

    So, how consistent are you, nk?

    LarryD (feb78b)

  18. I just do not get what is so evil about carrying identification. Hell, the Dems want mandatory national biometric identification.

    JD (cc3aa7)

  19. If you don’t like me now, wait until I tell you that I also disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the border crossing exception to Fourth Amendment probable cause to places 50 miles away from the border. And to metal detectors in courthouses. Not to mention parking meters. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    nk (db4a41)

  20. And Terry vs. Ohio.

    nk (db4a41)

  21. And Democrats. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    nk (db4a41)

  22. Have you guys read Edward Abbey? He was what Ayn Rand wanted to be.

    nk (db4a41)

  23. “I think what bothers me most about it is that just a handful of US citizens and legal immigrants will be harassed and the vast majority of us will just not care because it will not happen to us.”

    I don’t know, nk… I think a lot of so-called “harassment” can be traced back to the attitude one… anyone… takes when stopped by law enforcement. My experience has been that if one treats an officer civilly and with the same amount of respect one would like to be shown to oneself, a satisfactory outcome will result.

    I’ve been stopped many, many times (I have a lead foot and tend to drive “fast cars”) and have never ever been “harassed”… but, admittedly, I am melanin-challenged.

    Just my opinion.

    GeneralMalaise (33f99a)

  24. The uselesness of words, I guess GM. By “harassed” I meant just to be asked to show ID, not that the officer would be acting in bad faith.

    nk (db4a41)

  25. The uselesness of words
    Too much Lewis Carroll, not enough S.I.Hayakawa.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b5b5b2)

  26. How is it being harassed to ask someone to present ID in the course of a routine traffic stop, or the other scenarios in which this law allows. And to be clear, this law most certainly does not allow police to just randomly pull people over and demand papers.

    JD (cc3aa7)

  27. DRJ,
    Remember that Arizona journalism professor, Tim McGuire, we discussed a few days ago? I said McGuire was operating from a thinly disguised political agenda on the illegal immigration law. He’s thrown away the disguise, praising the front-page Arizona Republic editorial blasting the illegal immigration law.

    For me, the primary accomplishment of the Republic editorial was its clear effort to spot and label the raw, political cynicism that is driving politicians in the spring of 2010. When the editors put the hammer to nine Arizona politicians it is clear those pols had the opportunity to choose good and to choose solutions to the problem. Instead, as the Republic points out, they have chosen the expedient and the cynical.

    IOW, just another left-wing hack pretending to teach journalism.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  28. JD…
    That will happen right after DHS does a make-over with CBP/ICE uni’s…
    I hear their new leather great-coats are real snazzy, along with the fedoras with the oversize brim!

    AD - RtR/OS! (b5b5b2)

  29. Sounds like the Gov is conspiring to obstruct justice to me.

    mojo (8096f2)

  30. I hear their new leather great-coats are real snazzy,

    I want a green one.

    I realize that I’m not going to talk anyone out of anything I haven’t talked him into so even though I am perfectly right and you guys are totally wrong … ๐Ÿ˜‰

    nk (db4a41)

  31. You vant a green coat, do you ‘ave papers?
    Ve only give green coats to those who ‘ave papers!

    AD - RtR/OS! (b5b5b2)

  32. At the end of the day, this is just a symptom.

    The problem is that the USA’s next door neighbor, Mexico, is terrible. It’s a nation dominated by a small number of extremely powerful people, AKA progressivism for useful idiots.

    Until that problem is solved, we have to attempt to control our border, but I think it’s critical that our trade agreements with Mexico somehow insist on some kind of reform to their country in very ‘stick our nose in their business’ sorts of ways.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  33. IIRC, back in the first Nixon Administration, there was some dust-up with Mexico about something that rubbed RMN the wrong way.
    He called in whatever Cabinet Secretary oversaw Customs and BP in those days (Treasury & Justice?) and set down the law:
    All cross-border traffic would be scrutinized to the fullest extent of the law; trains, planes, trucks, cars, pedestrians, all of it.
    The border crossings backed up with lines into Mexico of goods and people trying to come North.
    This went on for about three days until El Presidente called the White House and cried “Uncle”.
    That’s how you get Mexico’s attention.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b5b5b2)

  34. AD: you beat me to it about the Border Patrol checkpoints and said it so much better. We have a checkpoint heading in both direction on the interstate from my city. Doesn’t bother me a bit to be asked for my ID. Just my opinion, but if someone doesn’t want to show ID, they must have something to hide.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  35. Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch actually makes some sense: http://newsmax.com/Koch/Koch-immigration-Arizona-illegal/2010/05/04/id/357782

    PCD (b3210f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0747 secs.