Peter Schrag Illuminates the Preposterousness of SB1070

by

This op-ed by Peter Schrag is a reflection of what I have consistently thought in the realm of Immigration yet have not made concrete. Here it is:

Bashing immigrants: It’s as American as apple pie:

If you have a long-enough memory, the complaints from gubernatorial candidates Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman about the burdens illegal immigrants impose on public services in California will resonate with familiar arguments. The loudest, at least in recent times, was with Proposition 187 in 1994, which sought to deny all public services including schooling to illegal immigrants, and Gov. Pete Wilson’s re-election strategy, with its refrain, “they keep coming,” that was linked to it.

In the past couple of weeks, most of the attention on the nativist front has gone to the Arizona law that authorizes police in that state to stop people they suspect of being illegal immigrants and to detain those who can’t show required federal documents.

Poizner now sort of supports the Arizona law, Whitman doesn’t (though our “moderate” Senate candidate Tom Campbell does, as does Carly Fiorina). But Poizner’s proposal to deny children of illegal immigrants access to public schools and Whitman’s to merely shut them out of higher education are just as harsh and even more self-defeating.

But for anyone who knows a little history, what Poizner is saying loudly and Whitman says more softly has been said almost in the same terms about the millions of Slavs, Jews, Italians, Greeks and other southern and eastern European immigrants who arrived on our eastern shores a century ago, and about the Irish and Germans before them.

To read the entire article(I strongly suggest you do), click here

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

34 Responses to “Peter Schrag Illuminates the Preposterousness of SB1070”

  1. Liquid Reigns Says:

    Schrag is a hack. He is doing nothing more than repeating the same old argument, comparing apples (legal immigrants through Ellis Island and other ports of entry) to oranges (illegal immigrants who fail to obtain necessary shots, who fail to know and/or understand our laws, etc.).

    He does get one thing correct though: The New Deal was in large measure forged out of those machines and the immigrant voters they brought to the party. Welcome the Socialist Democrat/Progressive and the re-interpretation of the US Constitution into a living document needing to be changed with the time, the Group Right and Social Justice mantras.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      the immigration debate, at least on behalf of the CIR side, does not try to re-interpret the constitution nearly as much as groups such as FAIR, who would love nothing more than to trample on the constitution to obtain their goals.

      Although I wasn’t around back in the day, I would imagine that the reason his argument is “old” it is because the “what part of illegal don’t you understand” group are recycling the same mantras that took place from day one in immigration matters.

      You know, like conspiracy theories that hispanics are going to make us a communist nation.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        the immigration debate, at least on behalf of the CIR side,

        And here I thought we all wanted CIR, its the differences in the CIR that we disagree with.

        FAIR, who would love nothing more than to trample on the constitution to obtain their goals.

        FAIR trying to trample the Constitution? I understand them to want to limit immigration, which does not effect the Constitution at all, and they want those here in violation of immigration law deported through attrition, which again does not effect the Constitution. Your claim isn’t justified.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Oh but it is–remember that email I sent you, on their desire to cut out procedural due process for asylum-seekers? I haven’t had the time for comprhensive investigation into them, but the “attrittion through enforcement” is but the tip of the iceberg on what FAIR wants.

        It’s not that their goal is unconstitutional–government can do whatever it pleases with it–it’s that they are willing to ignore the constitution on the way to their goal.

        And you know as well as anyone that attrition via enforcement is not a lasting solution.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Another example is strong desire to revoke what has been established for all of our history, birthright citizenship via the 14th amendment. Say what you will about the merits of it, but it’s what our constitution, via SCOTUS’ interpretation, has mandated.

        On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Bryan Johnson wrote:

        > Oh but it is–remember that email I sent you, on their desire to cut out > procedural due process for asylum-seekers? I haven’t had the time for > comprhensive investigation into them, but the “attrittion through > enforcement” is but the tip of the iceberg on what FAIR wants. > > It’s not that their goal is unconstitutional–government can do whatever it > pleases with it–it’s that they are willing to ignore the constitution on > the way to their goal. > > And you know as well as anyone that attrition via enforcement is not a > lasting solution. >

      • bjohns15 Says:

        And “limit immigration” is generous term for what FAIR wants; what they want is tantamount to a moratorium on all immigration.

        You should read the “social contract”, headed up by John Tanton(on the board of fair), which is a much less-filtered version of FAIR’s ideological basis.

        On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Bryan Johnson wrote:

        > Another example is strong desire to revoke what has been established for > all of our history, birthright citizenship via the 14th amendment. Say what > you will about the merits of it, but it’s what our constitution, via SCOTUS’ > interpretation, has mandated. > > > > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Bryan Johnson wrote: > >> Oh but it is–remember that email I sent you, on their desire to cut out >> procedural due process for asylum-seekers? I haven’t had the time for >> comprhensive investigation into them, but the “attrittion through >> enforcement” is but the tip of the iceberg on what FAIR wants. >> >> It’s not that their goal is unconstitutional–government can do whatever >> it pleases with it–it’s that they are willing to ignore the constitution on >> the way to their goal. >> >> And you know as well as anyone that attrition via enforcement is not a >> lasting solution. >>

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        their desire to cut out procedural due process for asylum-seekers?

        You mean the following?

        * Asylum applications should have to be filed within 45 days of entering the United States.
        * Asylum applicants without travel documents should be excluded from entering the country.
        * Denials of asylum by trained asylum officers should not be appealable, except for review of procedural errors.
        * Asylum applicants who arrive at the U.S. via another safe country should not be admitted.
        * The claims of applicants from countries that do not practice individual political persecution should be automatically rejected.
        * Illegal aliens in the deportation process should not be allowed to file asylum claims.
        * Aliens who file frivolous asylum claims should become ineligible for any immigration status.
        * “Cultural” asylum and other expanded definitions of asylum must be ended, and the original meaning of asylum restored.

        Where does it “cut out procedural due process”? I see where they are advocating for applying for asylum upon arrival (shortly thereafter) and not waiting for years until they get caught for being here in violation of immigration law and then attempting to apply for asylum then to try to remain here. In what way is this ignoring the Constitution? The Constitution only allows Congress to determine who is to be naturalized and the process to become a citizen.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Of course, no one in their right mind would overtly call for elimination of procedural due process.

        If FAIR, for example, advocated for eliminating asylum completely, due process would be moot. But, they don’t, so since our goverment provides for an adjudicatory process for the granting of asylum, it must abide by the standards of procedural due process.

        At first glance, two of the quoted statements appear most likely be violative of p. due process:

        “Denials of asylum by trained asylum officers should not be appealable, except for review of procedural errors.” and;

        “llegal aliens in the deportation process should not be allowed to file asylum claims.”

        To the first one:

        I have been to two asylum hearing in front of asylum officers; the hearing is very informal and most likely, on its own, does not offer enough procedural due process protections for asylum applicants; it is but an hour of questioning by an officer, without an opportunity to present live testimony, or have their advocate draw out specific testimony. The stakes for someone alleging asylum are very high, thus the requirement for a full-adjudication in immigration court is required to protect the high interest.

        The “illegal alien” in the deportation process is even worse than the first one; it basically states that the only people who can apply for asylum are those that came here on valid visas and those visas have not yet expired; thus a whole class of individuals(and many of whom are undoubtedly bona-fide asylees), would be precluded from availing themselves of the asylum process. Really, it’s quite extreme in its scope of depriving potential bonafide applicants from asylum of *any procedural due process*.

        Imagine an individual who barely made it to the United States after a terrible ordeal of persecution; they then get put into removal proceedings. The government says sorry, I hear you, you may even qualify for asylum, but unfortunately since you are already in the removal process, we are going to send you back anyway. It’s unthinkably violative of procedural due process, unless, like i said earlier, asylum is eliminated altogether. And I bet FAIR wouldn’t mind doing that, but if they did, any shred of credibility they now hold onto would evaporate.

        t

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Another example is strong desire to revoke what has been established for all of our history,

        you might want to re-think that claim, the 14th Amend wasn’t ratified until 1868, prior to that there was a limited way to becoming a Natural Born Citizen.

        Say what you will about the merits of it, but it’s what our constitution, via SCOTUS’ interpretation, has mandated.

        There has yet to be a case of an Illegal Immigrant and birthright citizenship to take up a case. It is still assumed that by being born here you are a natural born citizen. SCOTUS can go in and interpret a case involving birth right citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants. Remember it only takes a 5-4 vote to do so.

        You should read the “social contract”, headed up by John Tanton

        I know all about Tanton, he is a 1970’s Conservationist who has always argued for limited immigration based on the brightest and population stabilization due to limited resources of our nation.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Quick note about the “due process being cut out”, I suggest you look up the Due Process Clause and realize it doesn’t cover Asylum seekers, unless they are in some way charged with an infamous crime. Congress is what came up with the application and process of Asylum. Congress, through litigation and regulation created the process through their ability to determine naturalization.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Must you still adhere to personal interpretations of the constitution? Procedural due process covers asylum seekers, be they doing it affirmatively (at the asylum office) or defensively(in removal proceedings).

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Imagine an individual who barely made it to the United States after a terrible ordeal of persecution; they then get put into removal proceedings.

        At the port of entry all the person has to do is tell the BP agent they are wanting to apply for asylum, the process is then started, hence you are using the after the fact example, which FAIR is saying OK they made it here without going through a port of entry we will give them a 45 day grace period for which if they are going to apply for asylum then they need to do so. Removal proceedings aren’t started until after an interview with ICE, for which during that time they can also ask to apply for asylum. Now, don;t confuse this with granting TPS to some like the Haitians, Hondurans, and others due to their home countries being in crisis, which while on TPS they can also apply for asylum.

        you are really reaching to make an argument.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        I am not reaching by any means; you are. You make your arguments by assuming that the 45-day limitation(which I did not address in my response) is in effect. Even if it was, it is possible that an individual be put into removal proceedings before being able to affirmatively apply for it. the interview is not with ICE; its with USCIS. Even assuming all of your rgument as is, it could still be violative of procedural due process. A 45 day grace period and a permanent bar afterwards is shaky at best.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Don’t forget there is a limit of 10,000 asylum approvals within the USA yearly, if we deny a person asylum or refugee status that does not mean that they will be denied if they apply in another country.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Must you still adhere to personal interpretations of the constitution? Procedural due process covers asylum seekers, be they doing it affirmatively (at the asylum office) or defensively(in removal proceedings).

        Please show in the 5th Amendment where it allows for procedural due process for asylum seekers through doing it affirmatively (at the asylum office) or defensively(in removal proceedings).

        The 5th specifically states: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

        Asylum has no Constitutional bearing whatsoever.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        I need not cite to the text of the constitution; the courts interpretation of the Constitution is what matters. If it were otherwise, the constitution would be a useless instrument, subject to an infinite amount of interpretations to fit the ideological preferences of whomeever is interpreting it, such as what you are doing now. Thus, here is some case law for you from Ali v. Mukasey

        All aliens within the United States, “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent,” are entitled to procedural fairness. *Zadvydas v. Davis*, 533 U.S. 678, 693, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001) ; *see also **Burger v. Gonzales*, 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Aliens, of course, are entitled to due process.”). In the removal context, that means that an alien who has “passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness.” *Shaughnessy v. United States*, 345 U.S. 206, 212, 73 S. Ct. 625, 97 L. Ed. 956 (1953) .

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Liquid,

        It seems like you have a complete lack of understanding of procedural due process; thus I forgive you for the gross negligence in your argument.

        On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Bryan Johnson wrote:

        > I need not cite to the text of the constitution; the courts interpretation > of the Constitution is what matters. If it were otherwise, the constitution > would be a useless instrument, subject to an infinite amount of > interpretations to fit the ideological preferences of whomeever is > interupreting it, such as what you are doing now. Thus, here is some case > law for you from Ali v. Mukasey > > All aliens within the United States, “whether their presence here is > lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent,” are entitled to procedural > fairness. *Zadvydas v. Davis*, 533 U.S. 678, 693, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 150 L. > Ed. 2d 653 (2001) > ; *see also **Burger v. Gonzales*, 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Aliens, > of course, are entitled to due process.”). In the removal context, that > means that an alien who has “passed through our gates, even illegally, may > be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of > fairness.” *Shaughnessy v. United States*, 345 U.S. 206, 212, 73 S. Ct. > 625, 97 L. Ed. 956 (1953) > . > >

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Removal proceedings require that the immigration violator be caught in some way first, usually by local PD or ICE, for which prior to the removal proceeding the person can apply through the ICE interview for Asylum or though USCIS by way of application, it is the denial that places them into removal status.

        Even assuming all of your rgument (sic) as is, it could still be violative (sic) of procedural due process.

        Procedural due process in this instance is granted by way of Congressional legislation, not the Constitution. In Congress attempt to determine who may become a naturalized citizen they have put in place a system from which to allow for the application and granting of naturalization.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Wrong again, Liquid. Procedural due process is not created by congress; the remedy–asylum–is created by congress. Once that remedy is provided, procedural due process is required(i.e. congress must provide adequate safeguards for adjudication as required by the constitution and its subsequent interpretation by the Courts.)

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        Not that you are taking those cases and applying them incorrectly for your asylum argument, which you are.
        Zadvydas v. Davis: about detention.
        Burger v. Gonzales: The Court declined to resolve the related question whether due process requires this same result before the BIA 133*133 enters a final order of removal on the basis of administratively noticed facts. We now address this question and hold that it does.
        Shaughnessy v. United States: a resident alien being outside of the country for more than 19 months, ordered him permanently excluded without a hearing.

        None of these are about asylum, which is what we have been discussing.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        You have just about zero understanding of the issue at hand. You refuse to acknowledge clear case law that specifically holds that aliens, be they legal, illegal, etc. are entitled to procedural due process; you weasel out of clear defeat by claiming the “facts” have nothing to do with asylum. It’s just flat-out preposterous that you are still arguing. You do exactly what you accuse people such as Dee and Evelyn of doing: refuse to lose an argument. You are not arguing in good-faith. Thus, I am not going to take the time out to correct your either a. complete lack of knowledge of constitutional jurisprudence or b. willful ignorance of same jurisprudence due to unwillingess to depart from whatever it is that is the basis of your ideology.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        I deleted your last comment because it is without any merit.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      I’d also like to see an empirical study that attempts to document how many of the immigrants in the early 20th century came through to the united states “legally”. Not sure if there is one out there.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        I would bet the better majority of them since it wasn’t until WW2 that mostly Mexican/Latino workers came in droves over the border. Don’t forget many of the immigrants that came through the ports of entry were given immunizations on the spot, many were sent back with out being allowed to enter, and a large portion returned to home countries after being unable to make it here.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Sorry, but i cannot trust your “bet”; I want hard data, otherwise its self-serving.

  2. bjohns15 Says:

    No because you have no understanding of procedural due process. The end.

  3. Liquid Reigns Says:

    Here is another link: http://hennepin.timberlakepublishing.com/article.asp?article=1018&paper=1&cat=147

    The Constitutional and Statutory Structure of Asylum Law in the United States

    U.S. immigration laws are statutory, deriving from Congress’s constitutional power to make laws regarding naturalization. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, of the U.S. Constitution. Both the definition of a refugee and the authority for asylum are set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), 1152(a)(1). The statutory definition of a refugee is nearly identical to that of the Refugee Convention. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42). The statute further provides that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … may apply for asylum….” This allows individuals who have fled their countries and arrived in the United States without permanent status to seek asylum.15 Section 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets forth the mechanics of the asylum process. 8 C.F.R. 208.1-208.24.

    The constitutional protection of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause applies to asylum seekers, guaranteeing access to a hearing (key word) prior to a decision to expel the asylum seeker. U.S. Const. Amend. V. This constitutional protection complies with the U.S. due process obligations under Article 13 of the ICCPR.

    Although the Fifth Amendment applies to all persons in the United States regardless of their immigration status, some noncitizens who are physically in the United States fall outside its protections. Immigration law makes a distinction between people who are considered “arriving” aliens and those who have entered the United States, legally or illegally. See INA § 235. Arriving aliens are considered to be legally standing at the border seeking admission, regardless of their physical presence in the United States. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678 (2001) (summarizing due process rights of noncitizens).

    Despite the lack of Fifth Amendment protections, asylum seekers at the borders are not completely deprived of due process. Ensuring compliance with international non-refoulement obligations, asylum seekers who are arriving in the United States are afforded the opportunity (key word) to present their claims for asylum and CAT protection. See supra Section III.D.c.

    So, show my ignorance! Becareful though, as your may be shown

    • bjohns15 Says:

      This supports what I have argued; FAIR never distinguished between arriving aliens–at ports of entry/border–in its proposals.

  4. Liquid Reigns Says:

    I would conclude that your entire argument rests on the claim of non-refoulement of section 243(h) of the INA which provides that the government may not return an alien to a country where his “life or freedom would be threatened”. Under current administrative practice (key word), the most important test has become the “well-founded fear” standard.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      That’s withholding of removal, and no, it does not. I am aware that Asylum is is discretionary as opposed to withholding not being so. Nonetheless, procedural due process–as it relates to the adjudicative process, not necessarily the result–is still guaranteed to asylum seekers.

      • Liquid Reigns Says:

        “procedural due process” (by your definition) is only guaranteed (by your definition) up to the asylum hearing in front of a USCIS Hearing Officer. After that there are no guarantees. If the USCIS Officer denies the asylum application, there are procedures the seeker can use, but again they are not guaranteed and can be denied, resulting in expedited removal. Refer to this link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32621.pdf

        FAIR is simply advocating for a change to those applying for asylum in the deportation process to be denied the claim. It, in no way, ignores the Constitution nor tramples on it as you have claimed.

      • bjohns15 Says:

        Wrong again, Fair’s stance goes above and beyond the already questionable constitutionality of expedited removal proceeding.

    • bjohns15 Says:

      Join evelyn and dee and all the dastardly open-border advocates in a the bliss of ideological ignorance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: