In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 18 2016 23:44 Mohdoo wrote: Predictions for today's immigration ruling? I think it's gonna go 4-4.
6-2 most likely, otherwise a 5-3.
Justice Kennedy has previously voted (and written the majority opinion) largely favor of the federal government in the case of illegal immigration: specifically the highly important Arizona v. United States, which should be noted was a 5-3 opinion, with Kagan not participating (Kagan would almost certainly have joined with the majority, however).
Roberts is also very much likely to take a dim view of the states' justification and evidence of injury (they're claiming injury from the drivers licenses they'd have to issue to undocumented immigrants), and his record shows that he's been very cautious about expanding the avenues through which an entity (individual, corporation, and state) can sue or litigate, and it's highly improbable that he will accept Texas' argument and evidence for injury (being highly flimsy at best, and overly political at worst).
There is no chance of a 4-4.
Final note, the opening arguments were made today. It won't be decided until much later.
The thing about the standing issue, is Texas almost certainly has standing under the most recent precedents in the Mass. v. EPA case.
A second issue I see with the standing point is that Texas could argue (and would be correct in my estimation) that if they changed their eligibility standards for drivers licenses and invented their own non-federal standard they would be sued. And probably sued successfully by an immigrant advocacy group that points to the Arizona case and says "Immigration is the domain of the Federal government." So IMO, standing is pinched between a rock and a hard place (if you are intellectually honest, which is always an issue for the Court).
On the substantive side, I say its a toss up and have no idea what will happen.
In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the caseagainst the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing.
Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States.
The reason Kennedy is an unknown is because its not the state vs. Feds on this. Its statutory interpretation (Congress vs. Executive) and its just that the States were the parties with an argument for standing in the most favorable courts.
Nonetheless, the states are still the main plaintiffs, and it will be a core issue of the court (at least, from what the oral arguments went). The issue of state standing on immigration issues is a major legal question that must be addressed before the case can be addressed. www.scotusblog.com. For the most part, I look at the case and would say that Texas' standing is negligible, as the issuance of licenses and license plates to undocumented immigrants does not really either constitute a major impact on state budgets, or note the pre-existing effects that undocumented migrants have on both the state economies (negative and, largely, positive). In the case of Mass v. EPA, the states could point to health and public welfare at risk from the EPA's stance on various GHG emissions, and that the EPA did indeed have the authority to regulate those emissions. Here, the argument is the relatively trivial budgetary impact of issuing drivers licenses (which itself is offset by license applications fees).
The argument between Executive v. Congressional authority will be trickier, granted, but see below.
Also, I'd like your opinion on the "rock and hard place" dilemma Kennedy is in because of Arizona. Isn't Texas re-defining "legal resident" or what not against the rules established by that case?
I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? If you mean a new definition of "legal resident" through DAPA, that is one of the core arguments here. The states (and the House) are arguing that the term "legal presence" constitutes an new class of "legal resident" and promises a pathway to citizenship, which would be something that only Congress may legislate. DAPA does not seek to do this, as it only relies on deferred action, in which the deportation of an undocumented migrant. This is a well-established and accepted discretionary tool of the DHS, and in current immigration law, this creates the notion of the migrant being "legally present" in the United States during the deferral. I find it a hard sell for the plaintiffs to say that this decision to use deferred action on a national level in regards to parents will create a new definition of "legal resident", when it relies entirely on prior practices here.
Having just read the oral arguments that have been made, I'm fairly confident we're going to be seeing a 5-3 ruling, MAYBE 6-2.
The defense mostly focused on the standing of the case, which was something that the liberal judges on the court were keen to to jump on. Most notably, Kennedy seemed to hold Texas' standing in heavy disfavor. It appears that Justice Roberts is inclined to accept Texas' standing (in contrast to what I wrote earlier before reading the arguments), as is Alito and Thomas (by silent consent).
The primary argument that the plaintiffs (Texas and the House of Representatives) are making primarily focus both on the validity of the standing (but then again, the arguments were extended to address the issue of state standing here, so it's not unexpected), but also specifically on the use of the word "legal presence". Most notably, they did not bring up the argument of the "Take Care clause", which indeed has not even discussed through the entirety of today (which leads me to believe that this argument is effectively dead).
The problem with the focus on the "legal presence" argument, however, is both the above (in regards to deferred action and "legally present"), and that the primary argument from the Obama administration on this front is that the term is ultimately meaningless, aside from some technicalities of Social Security benefits, and that the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.
This makes the argument that the states' are making very risky, if the core argument they're relying upon can be addressed so readily.
Here is why I think Arizona complicates the standing issue (I don't know about the other issue, its a basic statutory interpretation issue, so, in other words, complete guesswork) because IMO it makes the fed's argument on lack of standing circular: 1) Texas: We have standing because the definition of ;"legal presence" affects our license programs. 2) SG: No you don't because adopting that standard is your own self inflicted wound. 3) Texas: Arizona says we can't make our own definition of "legally present". 4) SG: So make another standard. 5) Texas: No such standard would pass constitutional muster because of Arizona. We cannot legally inquire into the legitimacy of an immigrant's status, any rule that de facto excluded this class would be instantly challenged in court. 6) SG: Adopt a different standard. 7) Texas: What standard?
Hrm, I see your point.
Onto the substance in part you said,
hat the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.
Imo you are understanting how much of a loss that is for Obama. The granting of benefits and starting a snowball effect towards amnesty/legitimate legal status is clearly a goal here. Its easy to see this because because if he were to have conceded that no issue would have made it to SCOTUS aside from the "take care clause" argument, which is probably a loser so long as Roberts is on the court.
In many ways, because of Arizona, the standing question is subsumed into the substantive question: Whether this has actually changed the legal status of DAPA beneficiaries, or if its a legitimate use of discretion and resource optimization. Because, if the Federal government has sole authority over immigration (which Arizona is based off of) and states cannot treat persons differently (such as providing different rights and obligations) that the federal government treats as equals (in the immigration sense) then Texas (or any state) is required to follow their determination. Thus, if one is consistent, Arizona confers standing to states whenever immigration policy is changed so they can ensure that it is interpreted exactly according to Congress's intent, because mistakes by the executive branch will always affect them.
Which is one reason Arizona was likely decided incorrectly.
First, I do not believe DAPA is intended to be a gateway towards amnesty/legalization by itself. The goal of DACA and DAPA is to put a moratorium upon deportations until Congress either gets its shit together and/or is voted out of the office. The use of either as an explicit gateway towards citizenship would almost certainly be considered an infringement upon Congressional power, so the goal of these programs from my perspective is a stop-gap until a new administration and a Democratic Congressional majority can push through comprehensive immigration reform.
That being said, given the administration's representatives stated early on the first day that the term could be crossed out if the justices prefer, indicates for me that the Obama administration does not put much stock in the term to be either legally binding or part of a pathway to citizenship.
For myself, I'm expecting the Court in this case to focus mostly on the issue of state standing, and establishing the limits and framework for future cases. DAPA will either survive in its entirety, or the term "legally present" is removed and it's slightly truncated without major effects on the program.
That is an interesting POV. I guess the core of the question is actually whether DAPA is basically a moratorium on deportations or if it does change legal status. That they are willing to concede that point makes me think that you might be correct, or its that the administration didn't see (or want to see) the difference.
And to be clear, I don't think it was intended to be a legally binding pathway, IMO it was intended to get these immigrants drivers licenses, involved in certain other government things (like taxes), etc such that the next time there is an immigration fight they can trot out some stats like "85% of so called 'undocumented workers' have a drivers license and paid payroll taxes." Because there is nothing they like more than talking about how virtuous it is to pay taxes.
I never claimed there wouldn't be a political motive behind it. DAPA and DACA, and Republican opposition, even more firmly puts Hispanics in the Democratic camp. Not that they needed it: the Republicans have literally done everything they could to alienate the Hispanic population with their stance on immigration.
On April 20 2016 03:04 oneofthem wrote: it's not a simple scale as though adding 50% of bernie would get you to the same place as hillary.
market phobic leftists and market accepting liberals may both be left on a simple political scale but they are vastly different in thought. for europe the former evolved into the latter after discovering socialism doesn't work. bernie has yet to learn anything since the 60's.
Still a decade more reasonable than you since you're emblematic of the red scare of the 50s. Maybe you could like pick up a book on how different styles of government and different markets have different results. It's almost as if socialism and capitalism are both very useful approaches to governance in different situations. I hope you don't have insurance, because that right there is spooky scary collectivism which is the same as socialism which is the same as bein a dirty fuckin commie amen!
If I may ask, what communist or socialist style government and economy (that is, one that eschews a market economy and the international liberal economy) has been able to prosper and reach higher levels of development?
The only one I can currently think of is possibly Cuba. Socialist and communist experiments throughout the world and the socialist-inspired import-substitution industrialisation movement consistently failed (and failed disastrously) throughout the 60s through 80s. Argentina is an excellent example, actually.
In contrast, the successful "Second Wave" of development highlights the importance of the market economy and the international liberal order (and global marketplace). The Asian Tigers, South Korea, and Japan (and now increasingly China) highlights the importance of a market-oriented approach, even if it isn't a free market: indeed, you could much more closely characterize their economic development approach as state capitalist or corporatist, in that they all involved the close involvement/collusion between the government and businesses, to sod with these notions of labor unions or human rights. The development model utilized by these countries relied upon an export-oriented production economy, with development taking place in wretched labor conditions, and high savings/low consumption rates to invest in future human capital (higher education for children, etc), and the utilization of their national savings to create a financial sector capable of large investments and supporting major corporations (the Korean chaebols, for instance).
As much as I would like to say that there is a good socialist or communist model of economic development...there really isn't.
... You're arguing against the same strawman that oneofthem puts up because he knows that Bernie Sanders is secretly the next Stalin in the same way he knows that Hillary Clinton is the next Gandhi. Healthcare is better when socialized. Education is better socialized. Utilities (electricity, water, internet) turn out better socialized. Have there been ANY Bernie supporters in here claiming that we should run on a socialist economy? No? Oh it's just the Hillary people dreaming of a socialist utopia? Well that's their problem.
Also in response to someone else, no Bernie can't accomplish everything he wants in one presidency. You know, the same way Hillary can't accomplish 10% of what she proposes if she is elected. Like all presidents, they can lay the groundwork for it.
On April 19 2016 04:56 Lord Tolkien wrote: [quote] 6-2 most likely, otherwise a 5-3.
Justice Kennedy has previously voted (and written the majority opinion) largely favor of the federal government in the case of illegal immigration: specifically the highly important Arizona v. United States, which should be noted was a 5-3 opinion, with Kagan not participating (Kagan would almost certainly have joined with the majority, however).
Roberts is also very much likely to take a dim view of the states' justification and evidence of injury (they're claiming injury from the drivers licenses they'd have to issue to undocumented immigrants), and his record shows that he's been very cautious about expanding the avenues through which an entity (individual, corporation, and state) can sue or litigate, and it's highly improbable that he will accept Texas' argument and evidence for injury (being highly flimsy at best, and overly political at worst).
There is no chance of a 4-4.
Final note, the opening arguments were made today. It won't be decided until much later.
The thing about the standing issue, is Texas almost certainly has standing under the most recent precedents in the Mass. v. EPA case.
A second issue I see with the standing point is that Texas could argue (and would be correct in my estimation) that if they changed their eligibility standards for drivers licenses and invented their own non-federal standard they would be sued. And probably sued successfully by an immigrant advocacy group that points to the Arizona case and says "Immigration is the domain of the Federal government." So IMO, standing is pinched between a rock and a hard place (if you are intellectually honest, which is always an issue for the Court).
On the substantive side, I say its a toss up and have no idea what will happen.
In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the caseagainst the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing.
Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States.
The reason Kennedy is an unknown is because its not the state vs. Feds on this. Its statutory interpretation (Congress vs. Executive) and its just that the States were the parties with an argument for standing in the most favorable courts.
Nonetheless, the states are still the main plaintiffs, and it will be a core issue of the court (at least, from what the oral arguments went). The issue of state standing on immigration issues is a major legal question that must be addressed before the case can be addressed. www.scotusblog.com. For the most part, I look at the case and would say that Texas' standing is negligible, as the issuance of licenses and license plates to undocumented immigrants does not really either constitute a major impact on state budgets, or note the pre-existing effects that undocumented migrants have on both the state economies (negative and, largely, positive). In the case of Mass v. EPA, the states could point to health and public welfare at risk from the EPA's stance on various GHG emissions, and that the EPA did indeed have the authority to regulate those emissions. Here, the argument is the relatively trivial budgetary impact of issuing drivers licenses (which itself is offset by license applications fees).
The argument between Executive v. Congressional authority will be trickier, granted, but see below.
Also, I'd like your opinion on the "rock and hard place" dilemma Kennedy is in because of Arizona. Isn't Texas re-defining "legal resident" or what not against the rules established by that case?
I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? If you mean a new definition of "legal resident" through DAPA, that is one of the core arguments here. The states (and the House) are arguing that the term "legal presence" constitutes an new class of "legal resident" and promises a pathway to citizenship, which would be something that only Congress may legislate. DAPA does not seek to do this, as it only relies on deferred action, in which the deportation of an undocumented migrant. This is a well-established and accepted discretionary tool of the DHS, and in current immigration law, this creates the notion of the migrant being "legally present" in the United States during the deferral. I find it a hard sell for the plaintiffs to say that this decision to use deferred action on a national level in regards to parents will create a new definition of "legal resident", when it relies entirely on prior practices here.
Having just read the oral arguments that have been made, I'm fairly confident we're going to be seeing a 5-3 ruling, MAYBE 6-2.
The defense mostly focused on the standing of the case, which was something that the liberal judges on the court were keen to to jump on. Most notably, Kennedy seemed to hold Texas' standing in heavy disfavor. It appears that Justice Roberts is inclined to accept Texas' standing (in contrast to what I wrote earlier before reading the arguments), as is Alito and Thomas (by silent consent).
The primary argument that the plaintiffs (Texas and the House of Representatives) are making primarily focus both on the validity of the standing (but then again, the arguments were extended to address the issue of state standing here, so it's not unexpected), but also specifically on the use of the word "legal presence". Most notably, they did not bring up the argument of the "Take Care clause", which indeed has not even discussed through the entirety of today (which leads me to believe that this argument is effectively dead).
The problem with the focus on the "legal presence" argument, however, is both the above (in regards to deferred action and "legally present"), and that the primary argument from the Obama administration on this front is that the term is ultimately meaningless, aside from some technicalities of Social Security benefits, and that the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.
This makes the argument that the states' are making very risky, if the core argument they're relying upon can be addressed so readily.
Here is why I think Arizona complicates the standing issue (I don't know about the other issue, its a basic statutory interpretation issue, so, in other words, complete guesswork) because IMO it makes the fed's argument on lack of standing circular: 1) Texas: We have standing because the definition of ;"legal presence" affects our license programs. 2) SG: No you don't because adopting that standard is your own self inflicted wound. 3) Texas: Arizona says we can't make our own definition of "legally present". 4) SG: So make another standard. 5) Texas: No such standard would pass constitutional muster because of Arizona. We cannot legally inquire into the legitimacy of an immigrant's status, any rule that de facto excluded this class would be instantly challenged in court. 6) SG: Adopt a different standard. 7) Texas: What standard?
Hrm, I see your point.
Onto the substance in part you said,
hat the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.
Imo you are understanting how much of a loss that is for Obama. The granting of benefits and starting a snowball effect towards amnesty/legitimate legal status is clearly a goal here. Its easy to see this because because if he were to have conceded that no issue would have made it to SCOTUS aside from the "take care clause" argument, which is probably a loser so long as Roberts is on the court.
In many ways, because of Arizona, the standing question is subsumed into the substantive question: Whether this has actually changed the legal status of DAPA beneficiaries, or if its a legitimate use of discretion and resource optimization. Because, if the Federal government has sole authority over immigration (which Arizona is based off of) and states cannot treat persons differently (such as providing different rights and obligations) that the federal government treats as equals (in the immigration sense) then Texas (or any state) is required to follow their determination. Thus, if one is consistent, Arizona confers standing to states whenever immigration policy is changed so they can ensure that it is interpreted exactly according to Congress's intent, because mistakes by the executive branch will always affect them.
Which is one reason Arizona was likely decided incorrectly.
First, I do not believe DAPA is intended to be a gateway towards amnesty/legalization by itself. The goal of DACA and DAPA is to put a moratorium upon deportations until Congress either gets its shit together and/or is voted out of the office. The use of either as an explicit gateway towards citizenship would almost certainly be considered an infringement upon Congressional power, so the goal of these programs from my perspective is a stop-gap until a new administration and a Democratic Congressional majority can push through comprehensive immigration reform.
That being said, given the administration's representatives stated early on the first day that the term could be crossed out if the justices prefer, indicates for me that the Obama administration does not put much stock in the term to be either legally binding or part of a pathway to citizenship.
For myself, I'm expecting the Court in this case to focus mostly on the issue of state standing, and establishing the limits and framework for future cases. DAPA will either survive in its entirety, or the term "legally present" is removed and it's slightly truncated without major effects on the program.
That is an interesting POV. I guess the core of the question is actually whether DAPA is basically a moratorium on deportations or if it does change legal status. That they are willing to concede that point makes me think that you might be correct, or its that the administration didn't see (or want to see) the difference.
And to be clear, I don't think it was intended to be a legally binding pathway, IMO it was intended to get these immigrants drivers licenses, involved in certain other government things (like taxes), etc such that the next time there is an immigration fight they can trot out some stats like "85% of so called 'undocumented workers' have a drivers license and paid payroll taxes." Because there is nothing they like more than talking about how virtuous it is to pay taxes.
I never claimed there wouldn't be a political motive behind it. DAPA and DACA, and Republican opposition, even more firmly puts Hispanics in the Democratic camp. Not that they needed it: the Republicans have literally done everything they could to alienate the Hispanic population with their stance on immigration.
On April 20 2016 03:35 Jormundr wrote:
On April 20 2016 03:04 oneofthem wrote: it's not a simple scale as though adding 50% of bernie would get you to the same place as hillary.
market phobic leftists and market accepting liberals may both be left on a simple political scale but they are vastly different in thought. for europe the former evolved into the latter after discovering socialism doesn't work. bernie has yet to learn anything since the 60's.
Still a decade more reasonable than you since you're emblematic of the red scare of the 50s. Maybe you could like pick up a book on how different styles of government and different markets have different results. It's almost as if socialism and capitalism are both very useful approaches to governance in different situations. I hope you don't have insurance, because that right there is spooky scary collectivism which is the same as socialism which is the same as bein a dirty fuckin commie amen!
If I may ask, what communist or socialist style government and economy (that is, one that eschews a market economy and the international liberal economy) has been able to prosper and reach higher levels of development?
The only one I can currently think of is possibly Cuba. Socialist and communist experiments throughout the world and the socialist-inspired import-substitution industrialisation movement consistently failed (and failed disastrously) throughout the 60s through 80s. Argentina is an excellent example, actually.
In contrast, the successful "Second Wave" of development highlights the importance of the market economy and the international liberal order (and global marketplace). The Asian Tigers, South Korea, and Japan (and now increasingly China) highlights the importance of a market-oriented approach, even if it isn't a free market: indeed, you could much more closely characterize their economic development approach as state capitalist or corporatist, in that they all involved the close involvement/collusion between the government and businesses, to sod with these notions of labor unions or human rights. The development model utilized by these countries relied upon an export-oriented production economy, with development taking place in wretched labor conditions, and high savings/low consumption rates to invest in future human capital (higher education for children, etc), and the utilization of their national savings to create a financial sector capable of large investments and supporting major corporations (the Korean chaebols, for instance).
As much as I would like to say that there is a good socialist or communist model of economic development...there really isn't.
... You're arguing against the same strawman that oneofthem puts up because he knows that Bernie Sanders is secretly the next Stalin in the same way he knows that Hillary Clinton is the next Gandhi. Healthcare is better when socialized. Education is better socialized. Utilities (electricity, water, internet) turn out better socialized. Have there been ANY Bernie supporters in here claiming that we should run on a socialist economy? No? Oh it's just the Hillary people dreaming of a socialist utopia? Well that's their problem.
Also in response to someone else, no Bernie can't accomplish everything he wants in one presidency. You know, the same way Hillary can't accomplish 10% of what she proposes if she is elected. Like all presidents, they can lay the groundwork for it.
None of those are the issues with Bernie, at least not my issues.
I think his leadership is bad, his tactics bad, and damn near most of his amendments are awful. For the most part, most of his amendments qualify to me as pork spending, just an extra several hundred million tacked on to projects just to buy his vote. I think his practices will create a Liberal Party that will not only be unsupported by wallstreet, but be unable to enact laws to prevent wallstreet money. I think his leadership will take the DNC down the drain and cause a surge of conservative victories across the US. I think he will respond by giving more powers to the executive branch, and those powers will be used by the next conservative president to undermine and destroy everything the liberal party has been able to get done in the past 100 years.
So its not his socialism that is the problem, its just him as a person, as a human being, and as a politician.
On April 20 2016 07:36 Soap wrote: Cuba isn't isolated at all, only the US have an embargo. We even built a port for them.
Brazil built that port in 2009 and the revolution finished in 1959. thats 50 odd years inbetween to run the country. The special period after the soviet subsidies ended is where the country should have died.
Cuba was nearly on par with America and Europe in wealth prior to the Castro regime, same with Argentina prior to thier revolution. To try and spin Cuba as a success of an economic regime is madness.
On April 19 2016 04:56 Lord Tolkien wrote: [quote] 6-2 most likely, otherwise a 5-3.
Justice Kennedy has previously voted (and written the majority opinion) largely favor of the federal government in the case of illegal immigration: specifically the highly important Arizona v. United States, which should be noted was a 5-3 opinion, with Kagan not participating (Kagan would almost certainly have joined with the majority, however).
Roberts is also very much likely to take a dim view of the states' justification and evidence of injury (they're claiming injury from the drivers licenses they'd have to issue to undocumented immigrants), and his record shows that he's been very cautious about expanding the avenues through which an entity (individual, corporation, and state) can sue or litigate, and it's highly improbable that he will accept Texas' argument and evidence for injury (being highly flimsy at best, and overly political at worst).
There is no chance of a 4-4.
Final note, the opening arguments were made today. It won't be decided until much later.
The thing about the standing issue, is Texas almost certainly has standing under the most recent precedents in the Mass. v. EPA case.
A second issue I see with the standing point is that Texas could argue (and would be correct in my estimation) that if they changed their eligibility standards for drivers licenses and invented their own non-federal standard they would be sued. And probably sued successfully by an immigrant advocacy group that points to the Arizona case and says "Immigration is the domain of the Federal government." So IMO, standing is pinched between a rock and a hard place (if you are intellectually honest, which is always an issue for the Court).
On the substantive side, I say its a toss up and have no idea what will happen.
In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the caseagainst the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing.
Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States.
The reason Kennedy is an unknown is because its not the state vs. Feds on this. Its statutory interpretation (Congress vs. Executive) and its just that the States were the parties with an argument for standing in the most favorable courts.
Nonetheless, the states are still the main plaintiffs, and it will be a core issue of the court (at least, from what the oral arguments went). The issue of state standing on immigration issues is a major legal question that must be addressed before the case can be addressed. www.scotusblog.com. For the most part, I look at the case and would say that Texas' standing is negligible, as the issuance of licenses and license plates to undocumented immigrants does not really either constitute a major impact on state budgets, or note the pre-existing effects that undocumented migrants have on both the state economies (negative and, largely, positive). In the case of Mass v. EPA, the states could point to health and public welfare at risk from the EPA's stance on various GHG emissions, and that the EPA did indeed have the authority to regulate those emissions. Here, the argument is the relatively trivial budgetary impact of issuing drivers licenses (which itself is offset by license applications fees).
The argument between Executive v. Congressional authority will be trickier, granted, but see below.
Also, I'd like your opinion on the "rock and hard place" dilemma Kennedy is in because of Arizona. Isn't Texas re-defining "legal resident" or what not against the rules established by that case?
I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? If you mean a new definition of "legal resident" through DAPA, that is one of the core arguments here. The states (and the House) are arguing that the term "legal presence" constitutes an new class of "legal resident" and promises a pathway to citizenship, which would be something that only Congress may legislate. DAPA does not seek to do this, as it only relies on deferred action, in which the deportation of an undocumented migrant. This is a well-established and accepted discretionary tool of the DHS, and in current immigration law, this creates the notion of the migrant being "legally present" in the United States during the deferral. I find it a hard sell for the plaintiffs to say that this decision to use deferred action on a national level in regards to parents will create a new definition of "legal resident", when it relies entirely on prior practices here.
Having just read the oral arguments that have been made, I'm fairly confident we're going to be seeing a 5-3 ruling, MAYBE 6-2.
The defense mostly focused on the standing of the case, which was something that the liberal judges on the court were keen to to jump on. Most notably, Kennedy seemed to hold Texas' standing in heavy disfavor. It appears that Justice Roberts is inclined to accept Texas' standing (in contrast to what I wrote earlier before reading the arguments), as is Alito and Thomas (by silent consent).
The primary argument that the plaintiffs (Texas and the House of Representatives) are making primarily focus both on the validity of the standing (but then again, the arguments were extended to address the issue of state standing here, so it's not unexpected), but also specifically on the use of the word "legal presence". Most notably, they did not bring up the argument of the "Take Care clause", which indeed has not even discussed through the entirety of today (which leads me to believe that this argument is effectively dead).
The problem with the focus on the "legal presence" argument, however, is both the above (in regards to deferred action and "legally present"), and that the primary argument from the Obama administration on this front is that the term is ultimately meaningless, aside from some technicalities of Social Security benefits, and that the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.
This makes the argument that the states' are making very risky, if the core argument they're relying upon can be addressed so readily.
Here is why I think Arizona complicates the standing issue (I don't know about the other issue, its a basic statutory interpretation issue, so, in other words, complete guesswork) because IMO it makes the fed's argument on lack of standing circular: 1) Texas: We have standing because the definition of ;"legal presence" affects our license programs. 2) SG: No you don't because adopting that standard is your own self inflicted wound. 3) Texas: Arizona says we can't make our own definition of "legally present". 4) SG: So make another standard. 5) Texas: No such standard would pass constitutional muster because of Arizona. We cannot legally inquire into the legitimacy of an immigrant's status, any rule that de facto excluded this class would be instantly challenged in court. 6) SG: Adopt a different standard. 7) Texas: What standard?
Hrm, I see your point.
Onto the substance in part you said,
hat the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.
Imo you are understanting how much of a loss that is for Obama. The granting of benefits and starting a snowball effect towards amnesty/legitimate legal status is clearly a goal here. Its easy to see this because because if he were to have conceded that no issue would have made it to SCOTUS aside from the "take care clause" argument, which is probably a loser so long as Roberts is on the court.
In many ways, because of Arizona, the standing question is subsumed into the substantive question: Whether this has actually changed the legal status of DAPA beneficiaries, or if its a legitimate use of discretion and resource optimization. Because, if the Federal government has sole authority over immigration (which Arizona is based off of) and states cannot treat persons differently (such as providing different rights and obligations) that the federal government treats as equals (in the immigration sense) then Texas (or any state) is required to follow their determination. Thus, if one is consistent, Arizona confers standing to states whenever immigration policy is changed so they can ensure that it is interpreted exactly according to Congress's intent, because mistakes by the executive branch will always affect them.
Which is one reason Arizona was likely decided incorrectly.
First, I do not believe DAPA is intended to be a gateway towards amnesty/legalization by itself. The goal of DACA and DAPA is to put a moratorium upon deportations until Congress either gets its shit together and/or is voted out of the office. The use of either as an explicit gateway towards citizenship would almost certainly be considered an infringement upon Congressional power, so the goal of these programs from my perspective is a stop-gap until a new administration and a Democratic Congressional majority can push through comprehensive immigration reform.
That being said, given the administration's representatives stated early on the first day that the term could be crossed out if the justices prefer, indicates for me that the Obama administration does not put much stock in the term to be either legally binding or part of a pathway to citizenship.
For myself, I'm expecting the Court in this case to focus mostly on the issue of state standing, and establishing the limits and framework for future cases. DAPA will either survive in its entirety, or the term "legally present" is removed and it's slightly truncated without major effects on the program.
That is an interesting POV. I guess the core of the question is actually whether DAPA is basically a moratorium on deportations or if it does change legal status. That they are willing to concede that point makes me think that you might be correct, or its that the administration didn't see (or want to see) the difference.
And to be clear, I don't think it was intended to be a legally binding pathway, IMO it was intended to get these immigrants drivers licenses, involved in certain other government things (like taxes), etc such that the next time there is an immigration fight they can trot out some stats like "85% of so called 'undocumented workers' have a drivers license and paid payroll taxes." Because there is nothing they like more than talking about how virtuous it is to pay taxes.
I never claimed there wouldn't be a political motive behind it. DAPA and DACA, and Republican opposition, even more firmly puts Hispanics in the Democratic camp. Not that they needed it: the Republicans have literally done everything they could to alienate the Hispanic population with their stance on immigration.
On April 20 2016 03:35 Jormundr wrote:
On April 20 2016 03:04 oneofthem wrote: it's not a simple scale as though adding 50% of bernie would get you to the same place as hillary.
market phobic leftists and market accepting liberals may both be left on a simple political scale but they are vastly different in thought. for europe the former evolved into the latter after discovering socialism doesn't work. bernie has yet to learn anything since the 60's.
Still a decade more reasonable than you since you're emblematic of the red scare of the 50s. Maybe you could like pick up a book on how different styles of government and different markets have different results. It's almost as if socialism and capitalism are both very useful approaches to governance in different situations. I hope you don't have insurance, because that right there is spooky scary collectivism which is the same as socialism which is the same as bein a dirty fuckin commie amen!
If I may ask, what communist or socialist style government and economy (that is, one that eschews a market economy and the international liberal economy) has been able to prosper and reach higher levels of development?
The only one I can currently think of is possibly Cuba. Socialist and communist experiments throughout the world and the socialist-inspired import-substitution industrialisation movement consistently failed (and failed disastrously) throughout the 60s through 80s. Argentina is an excellent example, actually.
In contrast, the successful "Second Wave" of development highlights the importance of the market economy and the international liberal order (and global marketplace). The Asian Tigers, South Korea, and Japan (and now increasingly China) highlights the importance of a market-oriented approach, even if it isn't a free market: indeed, you could much more closely characterize their economic development approach as state capitalist or corporatist, in that they all involved the close involvement/collusion between the government and businesses, to sod with these notions of labor unions or human rights. The development model utilized by these countries relied upon an export-oriented production economy, with development taking place in wretched labor conditions, and high savings/low consumption rates to invest in future human capital (higher education for children, etc), and the utilization of their national savings to create a financial sector capable of large investments and supporting major corporations (the Korean chaebols, for instance).
As much as I would like to say that there is a good socialist or communist model of economic development...there really isn't.
... You're arguing against the same strawman that oneofthem puts up because he knows that Bernie Sanders is secretly the next Stalin in the same way he knows that Hillary Clinton is the next Gandhi. Healthcare is better when socialized. Education is better socialized. Utilities (electricity, water, internet) turn out better socialized. Have there been ANY Bernie supporters in here claiming that we should run on a socialist economy? No? Oh it's just the Hillary people dreaming of a socialist utopia? Well that's their problem.
Also in response to someone else, no Bernie can't accomplish everything he wants in one presidency. You know, the same way Hillary can't accomplish 10% of what she proposes if she is elected. Like all presidents, they can lay the groundwork for it.
On April 20 2016 07:39 kwizach wrote: I have been too busy to post in the last few days, but it looks like recent developments can be summed up as the following:
- Sanders' campaign still barely raises money for down-ballot Democrats, whines about Hillary doing so - Sanders' campaign whines about how Hillary is raising money through HVF, even though it's Sanders who just received a 270-page letter from the FEC about violations, not Hillary (hers was something like 3-4 pages). - Sanders' campaign have yet to find any aspect of Hillary's fundraising that isn't legal, and all there is to it is that the Clinton campaign using the current legal framework to beat Republicans instead of the one they wish we lived in -- exactly like Sanders would if he ended up being the nominee - Sanders whines about long-established voting rules in NY -- how dare Democrats select their own nominee without consulting independents!? - "Voter suppression" excuses magnifying a thousand times issues that will be due to lack of sufficient organization will be thinly blamed on Clinton and the DNC, through the usual leaps of logic about as rooted in reality as the flying spaghetti monster - Sanders is still completely unprepared with regards to his own policies:
Q: Have you thought about exactly what your tariff scenario would look like?
A: No. All I will tell you is that the status quo, what exists today, is not acceptable.
How ignorant this guy is about the effects of his own platform is seriously mind-blowing.
This is not to try to bring down Sanders' numbers, because he's going to fall short today yet again with regards to his targets and I have no doubt whatsoever that Clinton will be the nominee, but this primary has been incredibly disappointing. The guy who initially wanted to run a positive campaign has seen his campaign managers and some of his success go to his head, and he's now doing actual damage to the chances of progressives in the general election by going negative against everyone who doesn't support him. To think that he was initially interested in discussing issues, instead of attacking Hillary's integrity non-stop... What a waste. He's still had a positive impact in terms of helping rehabilitate "socialist" ideas and policies, and I'm happy that he ran for that reason, but the nastiness that has become the mark of his campaign lately is truly sad. And he's not even attempting (or barely) to reign in his surrogates and supporters when they go even more negative than his campaign. I still have some hope he's going to do his best to support Hillary once she becomes the nominee, but GOP leaders are already rubbing their hands together at how many dishonest attacks from Sanders they're going to be using against Clinton.
I think this is the tragedy of having two candidates -- you blame anti-Hillary sentiment on Bernie. And that's just too simple.
The fact is people don't like or trust Hillary Clinton, and Bernie has little to do with that. Many liberal-minded people didn't even want her to be Secretary of State. After all, she had zero prior experience in diplomacy.
Her career is built on opportunism. Not just in campaign contributions, but in measures such as the Clinton Foundation, the question isn't who she's taken money from, but rather who hasn't she received money from.
It's a shame Biden isn't running, to clear this false dichotomy. Because as it is now, Clinton supporters have taken this stance that she is the party leader, and any questioning of her character is an assault on the party, and now you've got a singular name and face to blame for that "assault" -- her singular opponent, Bernie.
But it's really not Bernie. If there were other people in the race, such as Biden, maybe you'd see the obvious fact that people have very good reasons to not trust Hillary.
On April 20 2016 07:30 Sermokala wrote: Even cuba has made massive capitalist concessions to keep their people from starving. while they lack international trade Fidel has managed to avoid a lot of the negative effects of globalization. Whats the point of corruption when you can't get any foreign goods?
so I guess communism works as long as you are self sufficent and are isolated from outside trade?
The great Cuba where people risk death on tiny self-made wooden rafts to become refugees in America. Please, save us from our Capitalist subjugators Cuba!
Compare Cuba to Hong Kong, or Singapore, or Vietnam during Communism to today where it's pretty much communist in name only. While Pinochet was a political oppressor, Chile has been the wealthiest nation in South America. Meanwhile Brazil and Argentina are failed states. Throw in almost all of Latin America sans Costa Rica (that dirty capitalist Costa Rica), and it's one disaster after another. But, hey, hail the Socialism/Communism! (Not specifically talking about you :p)
God I'm so sick of hearing about how "negative" Bernie has been, like Clinton surrogates haven't been implicitly/explicitly suggesting everything from "Bernie's not a real democrat" to "Bernie is sexist" to "Bernie can only win white/caucus/weird states like Hawaii and Alaska and Michigan" lolol. If you consider going negative to be pointing out factual data regarding HRC's policy flops and Wall St ties, then yes I guess the truth hurts. It's like everyone forgot how nasty Obama and HRC got during their campaign-- and some of the stuff the Clintons said about him.
If HRC goes on to win the nomination, I bet many of you are still going to find some irrational way to explain how a 74 year old democratic socialist Jew from Vermont almost pulled the biggest political upset in American history. People like oneofthem are EXACTLY why many Bernie supporters have turned to Bernie or bust, because they're simply told they're either stupid, naive, or young. I'm an avid Bernie supporter who openly admits Clinton's advantages, and i do my best to be objective-- but this Bernie is a cranky old negative Nancy dumbass is just... Dishonest, to use your wording. Good luck pulling in the youth vote by telling them they're idiots.
On April 20 2016 08:26 darthfoley wrote: God I'm so sick of hearing about how "negative" Bernie has been, like Clinton surrogates haven't been implicitly/explicitly suggesting everything from "Bernie's not a real democrat" to "Bernie is sexist" to "Bernie can only win white/caucus/weird states like Hawaii and Alaska and Michigan" lolol. If you consider going negative to be pointing out factual data regarding HRC's policy flops and Wall St ties, then yes I guess the truth hurts. It's like everyone forgot how nasty Obama and HRC got during their campaign-- and some of the stuff the Clintons said about him.
If HRC goes on to win the nomination, I bet many of you are still going to find some irrational way to explain how a 74 year old democratic socialist Jew from Vermont almost pulled the biggest political upset in American history. People like oneofthem are EXACTLY why many Bernie supporters have turned to Bernie or bust, because they're simply told they're either stupid, naive, or young. I'm an avid Bernie supporter who openly admits Clinton's advantages, and i do my best to be objective-- but this Bernie is a cranky old negative Nancy dumbass is just... Dishonest, to use your wording. Good luck pulling in the youth vote by telling them they're idiots.
I agree with you that Bernie attacking Hilary is not an issue, nor should it be. Politics is politics, people attack each other all the time. The issue with Bernie is that his ideals and policies will destroy a democratic party that is already losing seats, senators, and congressmen. That what he wants to happen can only be done if he sets precedences to increase executive power. And that increased executive power will allow a conservative president to pull back all the progress we have made. And Bernie and his supporters will be content with saying "at least we tried" because that is good enough to them.
On April 20 2016 08:26 darthfoley wrote: God I'm so sick of hearing about how "negative" Bernie has been, like Clinton surrogates haven't been implicitly/explicitly suggesting everything from "Bernie's not a real democrat" to "Bernie is sexist" to "Bernie can only win white/caucus/weird states like Hawaii and Alaska and Michigan" lolol. If you consider going negative to be pointing out factual data regarding HRC's policy flops and Wall St ties, then yes I guess the truth hurts. It's like everyone forgot how nasty Obama and HRC got during their campaign-- and some of the stuff the Clintons said about him.
If HRC goes on to win the nomination, I bet many of you are still going to find some irrational way to explain how a 74 year old democratic socialist Jew from Vermont almost pulled the biggest political upset in American history. People like oneofthem are EXACTLY why many Bernie supporters have turned to Bernie or bust, because they're simply told they're either stupid, naive, or young. I'm an avid Bernie supporter who openly admits Clinton's advantages, and i do my best to be objective-- but this Bernie is a cranky old negative Nancy dumbass is just... Dishonest, to use your wording. Good luck pulling in the youth vote by telling them they're idiots.
When someone says something that is not only wrong, but has also been studied and characterized, what is the proper response? "Hey there, enthusiastic young person! Its great that you enjoy the political process as much as I do! You have some great ideas! Let's go over some of the fine points and see if we can iron it out, shall we?"?
You're not accounting for the fact that people who are riding the Bernie wave may be extremely inspired and not all that knowledgeable. This extreme political enthusiasm isn't worth anything if it is as shallow as the wall st memes we see as the foundation of Bernie's campaign. I'm sorry but his campaign is not of substance. His goals are great and his beliefs are a joke. He's just really, really incorrect in all the right ways. I appreciate his movement immensely because of the enthusiasm it has filled people like you with. I hope you stay involved in the process. But inspirational words are not always actionable or even reasonable. You need to consider it's possible there really are issues with him as a candidate. He's running for president, not political figure head. The president serves an extremely vital purpose in many ways.
this idea that hillary is not a strong candidate is really more of the same heightened distrust of government and elites. hillary hasn't made it better but to be clear, the distrust for her is irrational and misinformed.
What percent of Sanders supporters do you think voted "has divided it"?
How's that in any way, form or shape related to his argument?
Sanders supporters believe they are reinventing the party by helping to inspire everyone else to follow Bernie. The entire point of the Sanders movement is to bring in a ton of new people and unite around socialism, which means cleaning out senate and congress. It's nonsense, of course, but it's what they believe. They feel like they are being brought into something bigger than them and they feel a huge sense of community. I think this distorts things, since it is essentially a very united revolution which is entirely at odds with the other half of the party.
On April 20 2016 08:07 cLutZ wrote: Cuba was nearly on par with America and Europe in wealth prior to the Castro regime, same with Argentina prior to thier revolution. To try and spin Cuba as a success of an economic regime is madness.
The US had about twice Cuba's gdp per capita in 1959. Now it's about 2.5 times. (Your statement holds more true for europe, although you can find european countries that have performed worse than, or much better than Cuba since 1959 - using 'Europe' as this type of generalization is largely meaningless because we consist of Scandinavia, Bulgaria, and everything inbetween. If you, as many Americans, seemingly equate 'europe with 'average of france spain italy germany UK', then yeah, statement checks out, but we really are something like 50 countries. )
I'm not trying to really defend Cuba here - especially not in a GDP per capita comparison *, but I don't agree that 'about half' is 'nearly on par with', and I don't think you have to make that claim to make your otherwise valid point.
*(I think GDP per capita is a shitty metric for how good a society is anyway - but it's also predictably one metric where socialist regimes will be solidly outperformed by capitalistic countries. I've always thought that part of why communism has been such a failure is that it has attempted to compete in productivity, while excess consumption should be part of what socialism tries to curtail. The other area where socialist regimes have failed is that they've all been totalitarian, which I'm not sure whether is 'a feature or a bug', as people like to say. ;p)
What percent of Sanders supporters do you think voted "has divided it"?
What percentage of the NY Democratic voters are Bernie people? Surely not 60+%, and those Bernie or bust people might view dividing it as a positive, so not sure what your point is
EPT
)
