Immigration Laws in Ohio « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics

Immigration Laws in Ohio

[39 posts] [10 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 2 years ago by Walker
Latest reply from Walker

Tags:

12 Next »

Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

Strickland says no to bringing Arizona law here
Posted by Jim Siegel, Statehouse reporter on April 28, 2010 4:24 PM

Gov. Ted Strickland said today that if something mirroring ArizonaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s new immigration law were to make its way to his desk, he would veto it.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“I don't think Ohio has to take any lessons from Arizona,Ã¢â‚¬Â he said. Ã¢â‚¬Å“I think we're fully capable of making decisions for ourselves, and I think Ohio is not experiencing the kind of difficulties that Arizona seems to be experiencing. But I do not think it would be wise for Ohio to have such legislation, and I would find that unfortunate if there would be efforts to ... go in that direction.Ã¢â‚¬Â

READ MORE: http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2010/04/strickland_says_no_to_bringing.shtml

Posted 2 years ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

I'm curious if the supporters/defenders/whatevers in the Arizona Thread think it's a good thing or bad thing that Strickland doesn't want to mirror those laws here in our state.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Or, alternatively, how do people feel about something like this:

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/11/02/copy/IMMIGRANT_FEARS.ART_ART_11-02-09_B1_MQFHVG6.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Posted 2 years ago #
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM

Walker wrote >>
I'm curious if the supporters/defenders/whatevers in the Arizona Thread think it's a good thing or bad thing that Strickland doesn't want to mirror those laws here in our state.

1. I don't think we have anything even similar to the problem Arizona has.

2. I would hope if we did enact any new legislation, it would be more clearly written than AZ's law (so I can either support it or be outraged by it more confidently)

Posted 2 years ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

However, I suspect that support for such a law would *not* be 70% in this state, because our circumstances are wildly different. I would be surprised if support for such a law would be 70% even in Nevada, Utah, and Colorado--states that border Arizona but not the southern national border.

So in short, Strickland's saying that Ohio doesn't need to mirror Arizona doesn't bother me any more than the Arizona governor implicitly saying that Arizona doesn't need to mirror Ohio. That's part of the reason we have states and state governments instead of one national government, with the states as just provinces or similar administrative subdivisions.

Posted 2 years ago #
Joseph L. Harris
Dublinish
Login to Send PM

We need to keep those canucks from swimming across Lake Erie and stealing all our maple syrup! They will take American hockey players jobs!

Posted 2 years ago #
Joseph L. Harris
Dublinish
Login to Send PM

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

Posted 2 years ago #
pilsner

Login to Send PM

Why would any governor sign a law that is clearly unconstitutional and that will waste taxpayer money in litigation?

I thought conservatives and Republicans thought there was too much court litigation as is?

Posted 2 years ago #
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM

Joseph L. Harris wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

If you considered yourself a representative for the people's will and you didn't; you should resign

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Tenzo wrote >>

Joseph L. Harris wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

If you considered yourself a representative for the people's will and you didn't; you should resign

Exactly.

Posted 2 years ago #
kit444
Elsewhere
Login to Send PM

Joseph L. Harris wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

Or you should persuade them why they're wrong if you believe that strongly about it (or any other bill). Are you the people's delegate or trustee?

Posted 2 years ago #
pilsner

Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>

Joseph L. Harris wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

If you considered yourself a representative for the people's will and you didn't; you should resign

Exactly.

Bullshit! Elected representatives takes Oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, not rigidly follow public opinion polls.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

kit444 wrote >>

Joseph L. Harris wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

Or you should persuade them why they're wrong if you believe that strongly about it (or any other bill). Are you the people's delegate or trustee?

Oh, I see. If the politician is, for instance, a fundamentalist Christian they should seek to enact laws which conform to his biblical interpretation regardless of the wishes of their constituents.

Or is attempting to force political will on the populace only OK if the politician is leftist?

That's the appeal of totalitarianism; to inflict one's will on the population. Rather not have that, no matter the "rightness" of the cause.

Posted 2 years ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

pilsner wrote >>

rus wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>

Joseph L. Harris wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

If you considered yourself a representative for the people's will and you didn't; you should resign

Exactly.

Bullshit! Elected representatives takes Oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, not rigidly follow public opinion polls.

You seem to be stuck on this notion that the Arizona law is unconstitutional. Last time I checked, there was no Justice Pilsner on the Supreme Court, and the Constitution is not an enshrinement of leftist, surrender-the-borders dogma.

Posted 2 years ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

kit444 wrote >>

Joseph L. Harris wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

Or you should persuade them why they're wrong if you believe that strongly about it (or any other bill). Are you the people's delegate or trustee?

I've never been comfortable with the "trustee" theory. Trustees--for example, when a trustee manages a deceased parent's money for a minor child until the child is deemed responsible enough to manage the property on his/her own--are presumed wiser, more knowledgeable, more capable, etc. than their charges. They're not elected or appointed by their charges, either--they're imposed on them by yet other authorities (the original parent, the state, whatever).

The trustee theory therefore infantilizes the voters. "You're too incompetent to make your own decisions, that's why you need us to make them for you. Now vote for me!"

Elected officials serve the interests of those that elected them unless clearly in contravention of the constitution. An elected official is of course entitled to his own opinion and can seek to use the media and any other means of communication and outreach to his constituents to persuade them to change their minds on an issue. Elected officials do have advantages over most in access to the media, and I don't begrudge them using that. However, if the people's will is adamant, a responsible elected official must represent the clear and unwavering judgment of the people. That is what it means to have a government of the governed, not the governors.

Posted 2 years ago #
kit444
Elsewhere
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

kit444 wrote >>

Joseph L. Harris wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

Or you should persuade them why they're wrong if you believe that strongly about it (or any other bill). Are you the people's delegate or trustee?

Oh, I see. If the politician is, for instance, a fundamentalist Christian they should seek to enact laws which conform to his biblical interpretation regardless of the wishes of their constituents.
Or is attempting to force political will on the populace only OK if the politician is leftist?
That's the appeal of totalitarianism; to inflict one's will on the population. Rather not have that, no matter the "rightness" of the cause.

Should a politician blindly follow the will of the people reflected in the latest opinion poll or do we elect them to exercise independent judgment? If the former should be the case, why have elected officials at all? On every issue of the moment have an American Idol style instant vote where people text their preference. If the electorate is so upset at the exercise of a politican's independent judgment, they have the ability to vote them out at the next election. That is the check that the people have on the "totalitarian" impulses of officials and it's usually effective.

Posted 2 years ago #
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM

pilsner wrote >>

rus wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>

Joseph L. Harris wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

If you considered yourself a representative for the people's will and you didn't; you should resign

Exactly.

Bullshit! Elected representatives takes Oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, not rigidly follow public opinion polls.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.
Just making comment based on a representative democracy.

And a good representative does not follow the constitution as an immutable object. That is what amendments are for. And if 70% of the population wants something, then you change it.

If 70% of the population wants something and you shout 'Bullshit!', then you are a Dictator.

Posted 2 years ago #
pilsner

Login to Send PM

Tenzo wrote >>

pilsner wrote >>

rus wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>

Joseph L. Harris wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
If support for such a law reached 70% in our state, I would expect Strickland would change his tune; that is generally how democracy works, though he could take a stand (which people would call "principled" or "self-destructive and ideological" depending on their perspective) and veto it anyway.

If a state elected me Governor, and then there was 70% public support for a law like that, I would resign.

If you considered yourself a representative for the people's will and you didn't; you should resign

Exactly.

Bullshit! Elected representatives takes Oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, not rigidly follow public opinion polls.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.
Just making comment based on a representative democracy.
And a good representative does not follow the constitution as an immutable object. That is what amendments are for. And if 70% of the population wants something, then you change it.
If 70% of the population wants something and you shout 'Bullshit!', then you are a Dictator.

70% of the people supported slavery. did that make it right for politicians to enforce it?

I'm confident that the Arizona law will be found to be unconstitutional by Federal and/or Supreme Court Judges.

Posted 2 years ago #
kit444
Elsewhere
Login to Send PM

gramarye wrote >>
I've never been comfortable with the "trustee" theory. Trustees--for example, when a trustee manages a deceased parent's money for a minor child until the child is deemed responsible enough to manage the property on his/her own--are presumed wiser, more knowledgeable, more capable, etc. than their charges. They're not elected or appointed by their charges, either--they're imposed on them by yet other authorities (the original parent, the state, whatever).
The trustee theory therefore infantilizes the voters. "You're too incompetent to make your own decisions, that's why you need us to make them for you. Now vote for me!"
Elected officials serve the interests of those that elected them unless clearly in contravention of the constitution. An elected official is of course entitled to his own opinion and can seek to use the media and any other means of communication and outreach to his constituents to persuade them to change their minds on an issue. Elected officials do have advantages over most in access to the media, and I don't begrudge them using that. However, if the people's will is adamant, a responsible elected official must represent the clear and unwavering judgment of the people. That is what it means to have a government of the governed, not the governors.

I don't agree that it infantalizes the electorate. We hire trustees in several areas, not simply where we are incompetent to do something ourselves but because it is more efficient to hire an expert. We hire politicians--ones that reflect our disposition--as trustees to analyze issues to the depth that most people cannot because they don't have the time do so. They should (and I concede don't always, but we're talking theory here) analyze issues on their merits and vote on bills accordingly. If they make decisions that are unpopular, then they will not retain their jobs.

Sometimes making a decision that is unpopular in the heat of the moment is the proper one in the long term. President Bush was vilified for the surge in Iraq in 2007. If he cravenly followed opinion polls he wouldn't have followed that course, but it turned out to be the proper one. Should politicians have no courage of their convictions in the face of adamant public will in opposition?

Posted 2 years ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

It's not like I'm a lawyer or know anything about constitutional law, but I seem to recall slavery was constitutional until the Constitution was amended. It doesn't matter, for the constitutional law analysis, whether that was "right" in a moral sense, particularly vis-a-vis modern mores. Of course slavery is heinous. I would even agree that it was heinous back then. That doesn't mean that it was unconstitutional. Likewise, the fact that you find this law distasteful does not mean that it will be found unconstitutional.

There are legal avenues of attack against this bill, yes: First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and federal preemption claims are all colorable theories and will likely be raised if/when this bill is challenged in court. I personally don't think that those attacks will succeed, but it would certainly not be sanctionable or frivolous to raise them. The notion that something is "unconstitutional" because it's not "right" by your standards is risible, however.

Posted 2 years ago #