US Politics: the waiting-for-SCOTUS-to-exhale edition

[TerraPrime]

The retired white folks are mainly in the Phoenix, Sedona, Flagstaff or Tucson areas. The rest of the state is pretty much, a wasteland, except for the areas with the pretty rocks that the tourists like. I spent 10 years in the 10th poorest county in the country. You know what? There were no racists there, White, Black, Hispanic, Navajo or Apache, we all got along pretty well. Funny thing is that we didn't have any illegals, there.

Wow, what do you know? There are more oasis of paradise where people are free of racism than just somewhere in rural Canada. I'm totally missing out, it seems.

But setting that aside, my statement is correct, regardless of the the presence or absence of racism in some parts of Arizona - there are racist white retired people in Arizona because they're the ones who kept re-electing Joe Arpaio.

[TerraPrime]

Hmm, I wonder, why even bother to make laws, if the executive simply decides which laws are valid and which not. Let's abolish COngress altogether.

Arizona passing a state law that requires cooperation from the Federal government does not put the Federal government in any obligation to help Arizona implement their own laws.

The point is that Arizona is over-stepping its authority on immigration. It's not a state-level issue.

And this is from someone who supports mandatory national ID and paper-on-request laws for all residents.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Wow, what do you know? There are more oasis of paradise where people are free of racism than just somewhere in rural Canada. I'm totally missing out, it seems.

But setting that aside, my statement is correct, regardless of the the presence or absence of racism in some parts of Arizona - there are racist white retired people in Arizona because they're the ones who kept re-electing Joe Arpaio.

Don't want to get into a fight, but I think there are racist people of every persuasion, retired or not, all over the place.

[TrackerNeil]

Of course mass deportation is not the best answer. Mass self deportation would be much better. But in order to do so you need to drastically increase fines for employers and offer absolutely no social benefits to illegal immigrants. No college (Dream Act), no welfare, no healthcare (maybe except urgent emergency cases). If they don't have jobs or welfare they will leave alone. Those who don't can be deported by traditional means.

You very blithely talk about urgent emergency care, but of course those three little words change the debate. As far as I know, EMTALA applies to non-citizens as well, so illegals who show up at ERs with critical injuries/illnesses get free care. Personally, I'd prefer they bought into ACA-created state-level exchanges* and helped pay for their care, but if you'd prefer to let them free-ride...well, that's mighty big of you.

* Assumes that the ACA withstands the Supreme Court. If not, we are all free-riding, regardless of citizenship.

[Jon Sprunk]

Hmm, I wonder, why even bother to make laws, if the executive simply decides which laws are valid and which not. Let's abolish COngress altogether.

It worked for Palpatine. For a while, at least.

On a serious note, we've hashed this out time and again. The executive branch isn't subservient to the legislature (although they might wish it was). Which is why when someone, otherwise well-meaning, says "it doesn't matter who is president," it betrays a fair amount of political ignorance. In what manner and in what priority laws are enforced matters a great deal.

This is why I hold out some hope that if Obama gets a second term, that the repubs in congress might loosen their stranglehold obstructionism. Perhaps they'll realize that if they want anything done, they have to go through him at some point. Especially with the possibility of Hillary after Obama...

[Jon Sprunk]

* Assumes that the ACA withstands the Supreme Court. If not, we are all free-riding, regardless of citizenship.

I'm still betting that the bulk of the ACA stands. The mandate, however, is iffy.

[What Is Dead Already Died]

On a serious note, we've hashed this out time and again. The executive branch isn't subservient to the legislature (although they might wish it was). Which is why when someone, otherwise well-meaning, says "it doesn't matter who is president," it betrays a fair amount of political ignorance. In what manner and in what priority laws are enforced matters a great deal.

Correct it isn't, though it was meant to be.

[Galactus]

Correct it isn't, though it was meant to be.

Not really, hence "separation of powers".

[Jon Sprunk]

Correct it isn't, though it was meant to be.

I'd like some evidence, if you please. The way I learned it, the respective checks and balances were put in place so that none of the 3 branches was pre-eminent.

[TrackerNeil]

I think it is hard to predict for sure how important the mandate is. I don't know everything about what was done in Washington State, but I know they had some problems with a mandate-less system, but I also don't think that whatever they tried was designed like Massachusetts was. I need to look into that more. But whatever anyone wants to say about Romneycare, the thing that is undeniable is that the rate of uninsured has gone down a lot, and that state now has the lowest rate of uninsured in the nation.

From what I have read, Washington enacted guaranteed-issue with a mandate, but two years later they repealed the mandate. What happened next was predictable: citizens began canceling their policies, knowing they could re-enact them practically from the ER. Soon the pool of insureds skewed towards the sickest people, premiums skyrocketed (and there were not ACA-style subsidies), and insurers began to abandon the state. Naturally, Washington repealed guaranteed-issue, which returned the situation to working well for most but terribly for a significant minority.

What's funny about the mandate is that the penalty for defying it is fairly toothless, and in many cases less than the cost of a policy. Also, the IRS cannot attach wages or place liens on property to collect it; withholding part of a refund is pretty much the only option. It's a funny brand of tyranny Congress is enabling these days.

[DanteGabriel]

The retired white folks are mainly in the Phoenix, Sedona, Flagstaff or Tucson areas. The rest of the state is pretty much, a wasteland, except for the areas with the pretty rocks that the tourists like. I spent 10 years in the 10th poorest county in the country. You know what? There were no racists there, White, Black, Hispanic, Navajo or Apache, we all got along pretty well. Funny thing is that we didn't have any illegals, there.

You didn't have any illegals? What, did you check the papers on every brown-skinned person there?

No racists, either. Remarkable -- not that there's a county that has no illegals and no racists, but that a person wishing to be taken seriously in a debate about immigration is willing to state that there is a place in Arizona with no racists and no illegal immigrants. What did you do to ensure that? Administer citizenship and cultural sensitivity tests, and deport all who failed?

[Inigima]

If you think illegal immigration poses distortion issues for the labor market, and I'm not saying you shouldn't think that, why on earth would you point the blame at the poor bastard working for what we consider sub-living wage under blackmail threat of deportation, instead of the business owners who offer these exploitative, under-the-table gigs?

[lupis42]

You didn't have any illegals? What, did you check the papers on every brown-skinned person there?

They must have unrestricted immigration. The only way to have no illegals is to have no restrictions on immigration in the first place...

[Robin Of House Hill]

You didn't have any illegals? What, did you check the papers on every brown-skinned person there?

No racists, either. Remarkable -- not that there's a county that has no illegals and no racists, but that a person wishing to be taken seriously in a debate about immigration is willing to state that there is a place in Arizona with no racists and no illegal immigrants. What did you do to ensure that? Administer citizenship and cultural sensitivity tests, and deport all who failed?

It's simple. In a county where the per capita income is less than $9K per year, everyone is simply struggling to survive. They don't have the time or resources for BS. Illegals didn't come there...not enough money to be made.

EDIT: The estimated average income for illegal Mexican immigrants was over $15K. No wonder they never showed up where I was.

[DanteGabriel]

It's simple. In a county where the per capita income is less than $9K per year, everyone is simply struggling to survive. They don't have the time or resources for BS. Illegals didn't come there...not enough money to be made.

It's nice to see you're as simple-minded about demographics as you are about immigration policy.

[Robin Of House Hill]

It's nice to see you're as simple-minded about demographics as you are about immigration policy.

It is equally nice to see that you are clueless as to what goes on in a county with a population density of six people per square mile. No farms, no industry, no mining, no illegals. The hotels and businesses in the tourist areas, employed Native Americans, not illegals.

[Lord Mord]

Deathwalker,

The only solution to what problem specifically? For one thing "theft" is a bit vague. Also, if you're referring to public services, I don't see why you should be surprised people are blase about their dispersal. Generally, services are dispersed by the government when we believe society benefits from increased enfranchisement.

Can you be a bit more specific what has been stolen and why that's a problem? Or is the problem something else altogether?

[Robin Of House Hill]

I think it started when someone claimed Arizona consisted of nothing but retired racist, white people.

[Guest Raidne]

For those who want more immigration enforcement, what the budget you are willing to support on that? Because I'm pretty sure that's the issue at present, not an inability to find out who the illegals ARE - I've never heard this identified as the impediment to enforcement.

Looks like ACA decision will be released 10am tomorrow, and the money is on Roberts as the author of the opinion? That makes me wonder if the anti-ACA opinion is actually the majority opinion.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Did anyone ever claim such a thing? Or did they just claim that Arizona had more retired, racist white people than most other places?

What do statements like "No farms, no industry, no mining, no illegals" even mean?

Okay, I'll speak more slowly. In a county that has no farms or industry or mining, there are no sources of income that attract illegals. In fact, with a population density of six people per square mile, it doesn't attract any group I can think of.

As for the " retired, racist white people" post, I believe it was made to explain the popularity of Joe Arpaio. Apparently, no one considered his popularity was due to how he treated criminals.