Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
Friday's decision in the Eleventh Circuit which partially blocks parts of the controversial Alabama immigration law illustrates once again the love-hate relationship that this nation, and its various states, have with our immigrant population. On the one hand, there are the constant cries that immigrant populations steal jobs from American citizens and place a burden on the welfare system. On the other hand, there are outcries of desperation when large number of immigrants go into hiding, lest they be swept away by state or federal police in raids that do not do this nation proud.
The recent effort by Alabama to require checks of immigrant status in schools is one of those unfortunate measures that is all too effective. It can literally drive thousands of people from the United States, and often lead to situations where some members of a family are deported while others, having been born in the United States can stay at home.
The Court for the 11th Circuit put this practice to rest for the moment on the ground that the control over immigration is vested in the federal government which has made it clear that it does not want the states to go over the top on the enforcement efforts. We have in place a delicate dance whereby some sanctions are imposed as severe sanctions are resisted, lest they lead to a complete breakdown of the economy at a time when it is all too troubled.
On this issue, the case law is clear, that the Federal government is the top dog. When it speaks, the states--under the doctrine of federal preemption--have to listen. The risk here is that the hotheads who want to force this issue will take control of Congress at which time a punitive attitude toward immigrants will be yet another way in which this country manages to shoot itself in the foot.
We may soon have a real problem with immigrants, namely that their numbers become too few. The constant walls against economic advancement will give strong incentives to our ablest immigrants, even those here legally, to pick up stakes. The current policies that seek to tamp down on immigration without killing it off are far better than what is coming out of Arizona and Alabama. I have no doubt that we can think of better policies still, but they will have to be more moderate, and have as a central objective the integration of immigrants into American society, not their vilification and expulsion.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '11
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
I have never met anybody who has a problem with the "immigrant" population. Everyone I know, including myself, has big time concern about "Illegal Aliens". Words count.
Jun '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
It pains me to see policy makers muddle about over this issue.
1. Promise all illegal workers in this country an 18 month temporary work visa provided they register with INS.
2. Count heads.
3. Run background checks and deport the miscreants and lawbreakers.
4. Institute a fast-track deportation process for anyone found without the necessary documentation.
5. Require guest workers to return to their nation of origin at least once a year.
6. Accumulate data so we understand the size and scope of the problem.
7. Invite guest workers back as needed.
How hard can it be?
Oct '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
It's important not to downplay the problems of illegal immigration. I'm in the "close border now; give amnesty in a few years once the border measures have stood up in court" camp, but even I don't like the implication that illegal immigration doesn't hurt people (including a rather lot of Mexicans who are experiencing a failed stated along their northern border).
Immigration is the mother of all wedge issues, and it isn't helpful when libertarians try to couple "compassion for existing immigrants" with "open borders" (those two ideas should not go together; it's hardly compassionate to encourage the growth of second-class citizens).
Jun '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
"It can literally drive thousands of people from the United States, and often lead to situations where some members of a family are deported while others, having been born in the United States can stay at home."
And isn't that because those that would get deported have broken the law to be here, and those who can stay have not? What laws do I get to break without consequence? If a cop asks me for ID, I show it to him. If I don't, I will have trouble to overcome. I don't want a police state, but our laws should be enforced, changed, or eliminated. If, as a nation, we do not want to enforce our national borders, than our elected Representatives should pass a law that eliminates them. Let's see how the people feel about that. I don't think the position would be too popular. Those born here from illegal immigrants hit the lottery. Stay or leave, the choice is yours. Children should stay with their parents, not the other way around.
May '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
This is the sort of defamatory nonsense I expect from from liberals, not from fellow conservatives. Laws like this concern illegal immigrants, not the "immigrant population" in general.
Regardless of the merits of this particular law (which undeniably got results — many Alabama farmhands suddenly have to be replaced, and will be), enforcing borders is among the most fundamental responsibilities of any government. The federal government does not have the authority to abrogate such responsibilities.
Border protection is no less fundamental than national defense. If the federal government refused to guard its citizens, you can be sure we wouldn't be waiting for permission to defend ourselves. Likewise, we should not wait for permission to secure our borders.
Sep '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
When we registered our kids for public school some 25 yrs. ago we had to produce their birth certificates. Now a similar requirement is viewed as some sort of oppression. One of the major problems may or may not be too many illegal immigrants. Another problem is undoubtedly too many lawyers.
Mar '11
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
"It can literally drive thousands of people from the United States"
Good, that's the point. If you came here illegally, scram. You're not supposed to be here without waiting in line. Other immigrants had to follow the rules. Just because you're from Central or South America doesn't mean you get an exemption. Enforcing illegal alien laws is supposed to "drive people from the United States".
Second, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents Alabama's law. It does nothing to usurp Federal authority. Nothing, zilch. Alabama isn't isuing their own visas or denying entry to immigrants with federally issued visas. Epstein is flatly wrong about this. Alabama is not claiming pre-eminence in immigration, nor breaking any federal laws. Under his logic, a local cop couldn't investigate damage to a mailbox and hold a suspect to be turned over to the feds (which is a common practice), because mailbox damage is technically a federal crime.
Also, his inference that having lots of illegal labor here is good for the economy is pretty silly. So undercutting market wages and draining public coffers is good for us? Really?
Mar '11
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
Richard: We agree in part and we disagree in part.
I agree that there can be a knee-jerk reactionary “they took our jobs!” anger against immigrants (legal or illegal) that is not salutary in society. Also, we do not want ICE roving through neighborhoods kicking doors down and hauling families into carts in the middle of the night. That is disruptive to orderly society.
However, while laws that are un-enforcible are, generally, bad laws, it is also true that when people become accustomed to breaking laws or allowing laws to be broken, it undermines the basis of the liberty that properly belongs to a citizen and it undermines the basis of all law.
We need immigration reform to help resident aliens and workers remain here legally, and we need visa reform to encourage more of the skilled folks who are educated in our universities to stay in America, open businesses here, and prosper.
But we can’t do that on the basis of shrugging off illegal immigration or openly allowing the law to be flouted out of a misguided emotional compassion that neglects the foundations of a free society. It is bad for all involved.
Jul '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
Whenever I read anything by Richard Epstein in future the word RINO will form in a cartoon bubble over my head. If he claims to be conservative, CINO will appear.
Apr '11
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
"...have as a central objective the integration of immigrants into American society, not their vilification and expulsion."
With all due respect, Dr. Epstein, you do not help the matter by parroting the irresponsible leftist slander that a desire to enforce the nation's immigration laws is "vilification." In fact, you're the one vilifying decent people with whom you disagree - both here and in your attacks on proponents of traditional marriage.
The way you frame your arguments on these issue is beneath your intellect.
Apr '11
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
Douglas:
Second, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents Alabama's law. It does nothing to usurp Federal authority. Nothing, zilch. Alabama isn't isuing their own visas or denying entry to immigrants with federally issued visas. Epstein is flatly wrong about this. Alabama is not claiming pre-eminence in immigration, nor breaking any federal laws. Under his logic, a local cop couldn't investigate damage to a mailbox and hold a suspect to be turned over to the feds (which is a common practice), because mailbox damage is technically a federal crime.
I believe that Epstein is talking about Federal law as it is, rather than normatively. Although immigration only becomes a Federal matter about halfway through America's history so far, years after the 14th amendment opens the door, today it is clearly a federal matter. State pre-emption is clearly an issue. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is.
I think that the tone was unfortunate, and disagree with much of the post, but Epstein's legal claims here are sensible and his economics mainstream, even if his policy conclusions and incivility towards those he disagrees with are unfortunate.
Mar '11
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
Add to that his position that affirmative action is a Good Thing (and constitutional) because his fellow law school administrators considered it necessary to run their programs, and I have to wonder about him. A question for the next Law Talk, Troy?
Jul '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
Richard Epstein:
The recent effort by Alabama to require checks of immigrant status in schools is one of those unfortunate measures that is all too effective. It can literally drive thousands of criminals from the United States, and often lead to situations where criminal members of a family are deported while others, having broken no law can stay at home.
The Court for the 11th Circuit put this practice to rest for the moment on the ground that the control over immigration is vested in the federal government which has made it clear that it does not want to enforce it's own laws.
On this issue, the case law is clear, that the Federal government is the top dog. When it speaks, the states--under the doctrine of federal preemption--have to listen. The risk here is that a future Congress won't do what I, Richard Epstein, would like.
I wouldn't worry too much about that last one Richard. The Feds won't bother to enforce anything anyway. Too many bigshots don't want to pay minimum wages, match SS, and pay unemployment insurance. They also prefer a labor force that has minimal recourse if mistreated.
May '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
I'm a criminal, and so are you. Maybe not an adjudicated criminal, but a criminal nonetheless. The federal criminal law - including crimes defined by federal regulatory agencies - is so vast that virtually everyone who isn't a hermit in the hills of Idaho is a criminal. And if you're not a felon - which you likely are - you're at least a misdemeanant. Which is exactly what most illegal aliens are: misdemeanants.
So the next time you see an illegal alien, you should feel a rush of solidarity or fellow-feeling, and say:
"A fine how do ya do, fellow criminal!"
Jun '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
Quixotic: I'm a criminal, and so are you. Maybe not an adjudicated criminal, but a criminal nonetheless. The federal criminal law - including crimes defined by federal regulatory agencies - is so vast that virtually everyone who isn't a hermit in the hills of Idaho is a criminal. And if you're not a felon - which you likely are - you're at least a misdemeanant. Which is exactly what most illegal aliens are: misdemeanants.
So the next time you see an illegal alien, you should feel a rush of solidarity or fellow-feeling, and say:
"A fine how do ya do, fellow criminal!" · Oct 16 at 6:46pm
Except the difference is, while I may inadvertantly or unknowingly break a law now and then, I do not flagrantly flaunt our law. Every day an illegal immigrant stays in this country he/she is knowlingly doing exactly that...flaunting the law of our land, thumbing their nose and showing no respect for the country in which they portend to want to live, until they decide it is more convenient to return to their home. There are certainly exceptions, but they don't make the rule.
Edited on Oct 16, 2011 at 7:37pmJul '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
Quixotic:
So the next time you see an illegal alien, you should feel a rush of solidarity or fellow-feeling, and say:
"A fine how do ya do, fellow criminal!"
I could say that.
Or I could ask:
How many hours of overtime at base pay are you working?
Are you contributing to SS and Medicare?
Is your employer accounting for and matching your contributions?
Do you think the folks pretending to value you really do?
If they do, why aren't they pitching flat-out amnesty?
Why the continually confusing nods in your direction from them instead? Why the lawyer-speak?
Why do your champions live in gated communities where people like you are only allowed in to garden or babysit?
Why is it tougher for you to enter those neighborhoods than it is to cross a "sovereign" border?
Oct '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
Libertarians aren’t concerned with people migrating from one place to another to find work.
But they do have a problem with giving non-citizens (especially those entered the country illegally) and their “outside-the-US” born co-dependents (i.e. children) any taxpayer subsidized benefits (education, healthcare, welfare.)
But look at the failing public schools in California and Texas.
Plyler vs Doe is not helping but making illegal immigration worse. If you’re a poor, low-skilled undocumented worker, why would you bring your children to the U.S. if you know you can’t afford the tuition to send these kids to a private school in the States?
Edited on Oct 16, 2011 at 9:41pmMar '11
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
I'll try that line on the next guy who breaks into my house.
Quixotic: I'm a criminal, and so are you. Maybe not an adjudicated criminal, but a criminal nonetheless. The federal criminal law - including crimes defined by federal regulatory agencies - is so vast that virtually everyone who isn't a hermit in the hills of Idaho is a criminal. And if you're not a felon - which you likely are - you're at least a misdemeanant. Which is exactly what most illegal aliens are: misdemeanants.
So the next time you see an illegal alien, you should feel a rush of solidarity or fellow-feeling, and say:
"A fine how do ya do, fellow criminal!" · Oct 16 at 6:46pm
Dec '10
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
It's all rather simple, really.
Prof. Epstein does not presume that American citizens should be preferenced for employment and transfer payment opportunities over those who are not citizens. He feels, apparently, the marketplace for labor has failed us. If we give American citizens that preference, they ask for too much money.
For some people then, the very notion of citizenship-- or, for that matter, a better visa system-- is an unwelcome hindrance to the functioning of the that market.
People like me, though, happen to think that citizenship means something, and that its effects on the labor marketplace are the price we pay for valuing this concept.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with it. It's all about whether or not one thinks citizenship should mean something. On the opposite side of the spectrum our financial elites have the same problem. They don't feel any preference for their brother and sister citizens. Hence outsourcing, exploding wage disparity, and the associated Brazilification of the United States.
Personally I would rather live in the America of 1955 than the Brazil of today. But your mileage may vary, Prof. Epstein.
Edited on Oct 17, 2011 at 5:50amMar '11
Re: Eleventh Circuit Blocks Counterproductive Measures in Alabama Immigration Law
More often than not I marvel at the power of Epstein's intellect and at his ability to build a convincing argument from the legal and factual bricks at hand. But this piece suggests to me that he needs to get out more; that he has become to fond of the tower and too unfamiliar with ground on which it sits and its surroundings. The phrase "doing jobs Americans won't do" should in the case of Arizona and Alabama nicely morph into "doing the job the Feds won't do." If find it hard to believe that when we have the unemployment levels we do that we "need" foreign workers to get by, but whatever those "facts", we do NOT need illegal foreign workers. Prof. Epstein: get out of Chicago or Palo Alto or wherever and spend some time prowling around our Southern border states.