Wrong Court Ruled On Arizona Law

[skyrider 0]

Here are some pictures my son took while riding with his duel sport club, out at the Ca/mex border...Walk threw anywhere ya like, they rode there all day, and didn;t see a single border patrol!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/onekick/field/weekend7.jpg

No gate , no gaurd, just walk right threw! Skykid has many pictures where there was no fence at all!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/onekick/field/weekend8.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/onekick/illinois/DSCN3028.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/onekick/illinois/DSCN3031.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/onekick/illinois/DSCN3032.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/onekick/illinois/DSCN3034.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/onekick/illinois/DSCN3033.jpg

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Thank God we don't have one of those near Brown; I can think of two skydivers who would now be dead if we had them.

They had better learn to spot better.

Quote

But in any case, that's around 20 billion in construction costs every 20 years. (The most recent fence here cost $10 million a mile.) Call it another billion a year in ongoing costs (power, maintenance, training, patrolling etc) and around 10 billion in initial land purchases.

Since we have approved about 900 Billion this year in spending for the Iraq War. We shouldnt have a problem spending 20 billion to secure the border properly. Hell that is a huge savings. May even save the tax payers more money by keeping out some people that are getting all that free medical care and education. The initial land purchase part. Well, shit. I bet this may be the first time that land ownder may not be be to pissed of about eminate domain.

>Find a tunnel? You blow it up along with every and anything in it.

Uh, including the fence?

Quote

Ok, fine you send someone in the hole and make sure they cross under far enough to not damage the fence before they set the charge.

San Diego has one of the densest concentration of border patrols, fences and sensors along the entire border. We still get around 25,000 illegal immigrants a year through the fence.

Quote

Just because it is patrolled more then any other place, doesn't mean it is patrolled enough. Plus the Military is a lot more of a deterrent than the border patrol. They may not be so scared of a few guys on bikes or in an SUV. IF they are looking down the barrel of a tank. They may think a little bit harder about the decision to cross over.

Hundreds of immigrants are killed every year during their attempts to get across. (By the desert, not weapons, but same result.) Hasn't stopped them. Indeed, one result is that the coyotes (and cartels that help people across) make a lot more money. Indeed, instead of it stopping the cartels, it has encouraged them, since they have a lucrative new field.

Quote

Circumstances and the shady coyotes kill them. They take that chance, but they know that the border patrol is not going to kill them.

No warnings. just a sign "You cross this line you are now in dead man territory. You WILL be shot on site no questions asked" They will think harder about it. Wouldn't you? Yes i know this is extreme but you get the point. It is to easy to get here and there is no real consequences if they are caught.

is slowing illegal immigration down somewhat worth the money?

Quote

Yes it is. Considering the Cali spends out about 3.2 billion a year for education to illegal immigrants. We will be saving money after 10 years or so. Then that 3.2billion can go to actually educated American children. Then maybe our citizen children will be able to continue to play sports (they are all getting fa), learn to play musical instruments (our kids lack culture), Hell, they may even get their school lockers back (a lot of schools make kids carry their books everywhere now, even if they have lockers seems their arent enough to go around). Or maybe teachers would get a raise. Or hell maybe the state could just get itself out of its deficit, that would be a nice start.

Dom

• Quote

[dgskydive 0]

My uncle used to live right on the border. You could see the TJ lights from his apartment at night. We would sit out on his patio at night and you could watch dozens and dozens of people cross all night long. I think I saw border patrol once in all the years he lived there. The one time I remember seeing them. It was like watching the Keystone cops. Maybe 15 agents trying to round up 50 or so people trying to cross. I think they stopped maybe 10 of them. The rest just scattered and made it across.

Dom

[billvon 3,132]

>Ok, fine you send someone in the hole and make sure they cross under
>far enough to not damage the fence before they set the charge.

That's what they do now. They use either explosives or backhoes when it's going to damage something.

>Just because it is patrolled more then any other place, doesn't mean it is
>patrolled enough.

Uh, OK. There are over 1000 border patrol agents in San Diego; they cover 14 miles of fence. That would mean 143,000 agents to cover the entire border to a level that you think may not be enough. That's $35 billion a year in agents to get to that substandard level.

Like I said, the fence may indeed work to reduce immigration - but it's not an easy, cheap or simple solution.

>Yes it is. Considering the Cali spends out about 3.2 billion a year for
>education to illegal immigrants.

Right. And they pay $7 billion into Social Security countrywide, but mainly in California, Texas and Arizona. So add that to the bill.

Like I said, the border patrol fence may be worth it, and may reduce crime and gang activity. Or it may have the same effect that Prohibition had. That sure seemed like a good idea at the time; by outlawing alcohol and shutting down breweries, we'd end alcoholism and put a stop to a lot of vagrancy, violence and crime. Right?

It may reduce our expenditures by reducing education and medical care to illegal immigrants. It may increase our debts by eliminating the taxes they pay.

It may help our employment situation by opening up jobs for Americans. It may put a huge dent in our economy by ensuring that imported food is always cheaper than US-grown food, and thus putting farmers out of work.

It may be worth it, but it is definitely not a slam dunk.

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Right. And they pay $7 billion into Social Security countrywide, but mainly in California, Texas and Arizona. So add that to the bill.

Add in the medical costs, all the different state and federal programs that they take money from. That 7 billion they pay is nothing compared to what goes out. Of the all the Tax Id numbers used to pay taxes. I think it is like 1.4 million. Only half of those are from illegal immigrants. So 700,00 of the 1.8 million or so illegals pay taxes. the other 1.1 million take and do not give anything. We still save money.

Dom

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>Ok, fine you send someone in the hole and make sure they cross under
>far enough to not damage the fence before they set the charge.

That's what they do now. They use either explosives or backhoes when it's going to damage something.

>Just because it is patrolled more then any other place, doesn't mean it is
>patrolled enough.

Uh, OK. There are over 1000 border patrol agents in San Diego; they cover 14 miles of fence. That would mean 143,000 agents to cover the entire border to a level that you think may not be enough. That's $35 billion a year in agents to get to that substandard level.

Like I said, the fence may indeed work to reduce immigration - but it's not an easy, cheap or simple solution.

>Yes it is. Considering the Cali spends out about 3.2 billion a year for
>education to illegal immigrants.

Right. And they pay $7 billion into Social Security countrywide, but mainly in California, Texas and Arizona. So add that to the bill.

Like I said, the border patrol fence may be worth it, and may reduce crime and gang activity. Or it may have the same effect that Prohibition had. That sure seemed like a good idea at the time; by outlawing alcohol and shutting down breweries, we'd end alcoholism and put a stop to a lot of vagrancy, violence and crime. Right?

It may reduce our expenditures by reducing education and medical care to illegal immigrants. It may increase our debts by eliminating the taxes they pay.

It may help our employment situation by opening up jobs for Americans. It may put a huge dent in our economy by ensuring that imported food is always cheaper than US-grown food, and thus putting farmers out of work.

It may be worth it, but it is definitely not a slam dunk.

Taking some serious writers privelidge with the numbers there!

Over 1000 agents, devided by 3 shifts , then subtract the hundreds that man those dumbass security checks 50 miles inside the country, that are only looking for drugs, not illegals, leaves you with probably less than 300 on duty for the whole border at any one time, (and that is being generous!)

[billvon 3,132]

>leaves you with probably less than 300 on duty for the whole border at
>any one time, (and that is being generous!)

Right. But to have 300 patrol the border you have to have 900 on staff. (Three shifts and all that.) Which is why you need so many.

Or just use less people. That makes the border more porous. If you're OK with that, then great - but that border fence won't be as effective.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>leaves you with probably less than 300 on duty for the whole border at
>any one time, (and that is being generous!)

Right. But to have 300 patrol the border you have to have 900 on staff. (Three shifts and all that.) Which is why you need so many.

Or just use less people. That makes the border more porous. If you're OK with that, then great - but that border fence won't be as effective.

OK with it???

Maybe if ya add another zero....3,000 might get the job done, our borders are a joke, as proven with those pictures I posted!

Shut down those annoying border stops on the frreeway, they do no good anyway! put those men back on the border!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I don't know how scientific my sources are but all I have to go by is the El Paso newspaper and law enforcement officers my wife and I know in El Paso.
If I may, newspapers, radio stations and t.v. stations have been threatened by cartels all along the Texas border as to what they don't want printed. Newspaper offices have been blown-up and one reporter (if not more) from El Paso has been 'directly' threatened.


Chuck

The problem with media Chuck is very simple. You are seeing skewed data in action because...

IF IT BLEEDS IT LEADS

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I don't know how scientific my sources are but all I have to go by is the El Paso newspaper and law enforcement officers my wife and I know in El Paso.
If I may, newspapers, radio stations and t.v. stations have been threatened by cartels all along the Texas border as to what they don't want printed. Newspaper offices have been blown-up and one reporter (if not more) from El Paso has been 'directly' threatened.


Chuck

The problem with media Chuck is very simple. You are seeing skewed data in action because...

IF IT BLEEDS IT LEADS

That's the truth. The really sad thing is, until there's blood-shed on this side of the border from cartels, nothing will be done about it. so far, it's just been kidnappings of U.S. citizens by cartels from San Diego to Brownsville. Oh yeah, a murdered rancher in Arizona!


Chuck

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I'd suggest that if you want to concentrate your efforts on "doing something" that will actually make a difference,

Vote the Democrats out, and put an administration in place that emphasizes personal responsibility. That's the most effective approach I can think of right now.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,132]

>Vote the Democrats out, and put an administration in place that
>emphasizes personal responsibility.

Unfortunately, no one like that is running.

[muff528 3]

Quote

The Supreme Court has indicated that Art. III. sec. 2, cl. 2 does not mean that it is mandatory that every case involving a state as a party must go directly to the Supreme Court.

"We construe Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2 to honor our original jurisdiction but to make it obligatory only in appropriate cases. And the question of what is appropriate concerns, of course, the seriousness and dignity of the claim; yet beyond that it necessarily involves the availability of another forum where there is jurisdiction over the named parties, where the issues tendered may be litigated, and where appropriate relief may be had." Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 451 (1992) (quoting Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 93 (1972)).

The attorney who wrote this article was either aware of this and was trying to make a political point, or he was not aware of this, which means he isn't very bright. Either way, it is hard to take this article seriously. Don't worry, though, this case will end up before the Supreme Court soon enough.

I really am curious about this opinion by the SC. It seems that the SC is obligated to hear cases involving a state (under Art. III, sec.2, cl. 2) only if they decide they are obligated to do so. They decide whether or not there is "...another forum where there is jurisdiction over the named parties,...". If the Federal Government vs. a State does not meet their conditions then what type of case involving a State would possibly meet the conditions for the SC to deem themselves the proper jurisdiction and become obligated to hear it under Art.III? I realize it would be decided on a case-by-case basis but what would be a good example? They have already decided that State vs. State or State vs. City does not necessarily trigger their obligation. Any ideas?

[AndyBoyd 0]

Great observations and great questions. I'm posting a link to an article about a case where some Great Lakes states sued Illinois in order to force Illinois to close river locks to keep an invasive species of fish out of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes. This case went straight to the Supreme Court. Your question as to why the AZ case did not go straight to the SC is a good question, and I don't have the answer. Maybe lawrocket or the other Andy would know more about your question. Anyhow, here's the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/19/19greenwire-supreme-court-denies-injunction-in-great-lakes-44940.html

[muff528 3]

Quote

Great observations and great questions. I'm posting a link to an article about a case where some Great Lakes states sued Illinois in order to force Illinois to close river locks to keep an invasive species of fish out of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes. This case went straight to the Supreme Court. Your question as to why the AZ case did not go straight to the SC is a good question, and I don't have the answer. Maybe lawrocket or the other Andy would know more about your question. Anyhow, here's the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/19/19greenwire-supreme-court-denies-injunction-in-great-lakes-44940.html

Thanks! Looks like that case was sidestepped for now at the "request" of then Solicitor General Kagan ("...the court's decision to deny the injunction may have deferred to some extent to U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan") to be heard at a some later date by the SC (which, of course, includes Justice Kagan.)

[AndyBoyd 0]

Justice Kagan will almost certainly have to recuse herself from the case when the SC hears it.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Justice Kagan will almost certainly have to recuse herself from the case when if the SC hears it.

Yeah, I figured that. But the last couple of paragraphs allude to the possibility (probability?) that it'll never be revisited, at least from that direction. So the SC has met it's obligation as outlined in Art.III, skipped out on making any kind of substantive decision, and can now point back to this case in the future when anyone asks if they ever assert any original jurisdiction over a case as required suggested by the Constitution.

[turtlespeed 226]

Interesting.

I fed info into this engine and came out equal with El Paso.

My bet is that the data is skewed somehow.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[muff528 3]

OK, so I looked up the OK vs. WY case and read the "Syllabus" part which relates the convolutions the Court went through to explain why they, in agreement with WY, decided that they were obligated under the Art.III clause to hear that case. OK's position was that WY lacked standing to invoke "original jurisdiction". This was an Interstate Commerce issue. While reading that Syllabus I got the sense that the SC was really deciding the case before it was heard in their explanation of why they agreed with WY. IOW, It seems that the SC, by agreeing with WY that they have jurisdition and that they would hear the case, is also (in effect) deciding the case in favor of WY. It could have happened that they would have agreed they were obligated to hear the case and then decided the case in favor of OK but the wording in the Syllabus signalled the direction the Court was leaning.

Also.... it's a little weird that the Court's "Construance" about what cases may or may not trigger "original jurisdiction" was written citing a case that did invoke their obligation. IOW, they are saying, IMO, that .... OK, this case invokes original jurisdiction but we're not going to go along with Art.III for every little problem you guys (the States) have with each other. ...work it out yourselves!
Edit to add...... that I do realize that Oklahoma's position that WY lacked standing to invoke original jurisdiction is probably what caused the Court to write their "construance" about what types of cases will invoke O.J.

Also2..... In the IL vs. a bunch of other States (+ON), the SC, by not hearing carp case, has effectively ruled in favor of IL without ever having to go through the proceedings.

(Sorry if I sound like a pest but this stuff fascinates me.

[kallend 2,184]

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20110412,0,3040018.story

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[muff528 3]

Quote

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20110412,0,3040018.story

To paraphrase one of the "commenters" below the article: This places the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws squarely with the administration.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20110412,0,3040018.story

To paraphrase one of the "commenters" below the article: This places the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws squarely with the administration.

It doesn't "place" anything. It's a federal responsibility, and always has been.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20110412,0,3040018.story

To paraphrase one of the "commenters" below the article: This places the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws squarely with the administration.

It doesn't "place" anything. It's a federal responsibility, and always has been.

Well, of course that. I meant it in the sense that, IMO, the judges should have dropped the other shoe and instructed the administration to get busy enforcing. Maybe some convoluted legal reason they couldn't do that ...Maybe some political reason they wouldn't.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20110412,0,3040018.story

To paraphrase one of the "commenters" below the article: This places the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws squarely with the administration.

It doesn't "place" anything. It's a federal responsibility, and always has been.

Well, of course that. I meant it in the sense that, IMO, the judges should have dropped the other shoe and instructed the administration to get busy enforcing. Maybe some convoluted legal reason they couldn't do that ...Maybe some political reason they wouldn't.

The reason is neither convoluted nor political. It's because, simply, that that was not one of the issues formally presented to them for ruling on appeal. Appellate judges occasionally stick their extra 2 cents' worth in like you suggest, but usually they don't, especially in the federal judicial system, where that kind of self-discipline is usually adhered to.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20110412,0,3040018.story

To paraphrase one of the "commenters" below the article: This places the responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws squarely with the administration.

It doesn't "place" anything. It's a federal responsibility, and always has been.

Well, of course that. I meant it in the sense that, IMO, the judges should have dropped the other shoe and instructed the administration to get busy enforcing. Maybe some convoluted legal reason they couldn't do that ...Maybe some political reason they wouldn't.

The reason is neither convoluted nor political. It's because, simply, that that was not one of the issues formally presented to them for ruling on appeal. Appellate judges occasionally stick their extra 2 cents' worth in like you suggest, but usually they don't, especially in the federal judicial system, where that kind of self-discipline is usually adhered to.

Yeah, I thought it might be a strictly legal reason. I'll admit that I used the word "convoluted" editorially. Actually, I now agree with the ruling. A state shouldn't be forced to take what seems to be "extra-constitutional" measures to try to make up for the fed's dereliction. (By "extra-constitutional" I'm not referring to the alleged possible civil rights violations, which I don't think would be the case. I mean the perception of a state overstepping it's jurisdictional boundaries with respect to law enforcement.) What is the difference between a state or county agency enforcing existing federal immigration law and enforcing some other federal law ...for example arresting someone for killing a bald eagle or for pointing a laser at an aircraft? I doubt that the local sheriff would look the other way in either of those cases.