Suggested Answers - Second Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS FOR SECOND SHORT QUIZ

Question 1

What do current polls show with respect to each of the elements of the new Arizona immigration law (production of documents - arrest/detention of anyone without records - racial profiling)?

Answer 1:

Per the Pew Research Poll May 6-9, American public opinion on the main elements =

Requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status --

Overall approve = 73%
Overall disapprove = 23%
Overall don’t know = 4%

Total approve = 73%
Republicans = 86%
Democrats = 65%
Independents = 73%

Total approve = 73%
Age 18-29 = 61%
Age 30-49 = 70%
Age 50-64 = 80%
Age 65+ = 82%

Allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify legal status --

Overall approve = 67%
Overall disapprove = 29%
Overall don’t know = 4%

Total approve = 67%
Republicans = 81%
Democrats = 55%
Independents = 69%

Total approve = 67%
Age 18-29 = 52%
Age 30-49 = 67%
Age 50-64 = 71%
Age 65+ = 77%

Allowing police to question anyone they think may be in country illegally --

Overall approve = 62%
Overall disapprove = 35%
Overall don’t know = 3%

Total approve = 62%
Republicans = 79%
Democrats = 50%
Independents = 64%

Total approve = 62%
Age 18-29 = 48%
Age 30-49 = 59%
Age 50-64 = 67%
Age 65+ = 77%

Considering everything, opinion of new Arizona law --

Overall approve = 59%
Overall disapprove = 32%
Overall don’t know = 8%

Total approve = 59%
Republicans = 82%
Democrats = 45%
Independents = 64%

Total approve = 59%
Age 18-29 = 45%
Age 30-49 = 57%
Age 50-64 = 65%
Age 65+ = 74%

Question 2:

Under current federal law enacted in 1986, what records are American employers required to obtain from each employee to prove her/his right to be in the United States?

Answer 2:

Either a U.S. passport or a “green card” issued by the Immigration Service to non-citizens who are permitted to work in the U.S. In addition, 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1324a authorizes as a substitute for the passport or green card the following: BOTH a social security card AND a picture ID card that the U.S. Attorney General has approved as proof of possession of either a passport or a green card.

A “green card” is the I.D. issued by the Immigration Service to non-citizens who have been given official permission to work in the U.S.

Question 3:

Under current federal law enacted in 1986, what are the criminal penalties to which American employers are subject for a failure to obtain the records described in Answer 2?

Answer 3:

First offense = fines from $200 - $2,000 per illegal alien.

For subsequent offenses, fines up to $10,000 per illegal alien + 6 months imprisonment.

Question 4:

Under current federal law enacted in 1986, is it a crime to fail to enforce upon American employers the records provisions described in Answers 2 & 3? What are the penalties for such a failure?

Answer 4:

Yes. Normally up to 5 years imprisonment, but up to 10 years for coyotes, employers or conspirators (such as church groups whose members agree to shelter illegal immigrants or police forces subject to "sanctuary city" ordinances).

Question 5:

Under current federal law enacted in 1986, is President Obama (like Messrs. George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton and George W. Bush) guilty of a failure to enforce the law and subject to the criminal penalties described in Answer 4?

Answer 5:

Yes, though the statute of limitations has run for Messrs. George H.W. Bush and William J. Clinton.

Question 6:

Under current federal law enacted in 1986, are the police forces of "sanctuary cities" such as Salt Lake City guilty of a "conspiracy to violate" federal immigration law and subject to the penalties described in Answer 4?

Answer 6:

Yes.

Question 7:

If ordinary citizens such as you and I become aware of a person's illegal-immigration status, do we have a legal duty "to rat" on them? Despite our cultural bias against "ratting," does English-American common law require each of us "to rat" on anyone we know to be violating any law? If so, are we guilty as an "accessory after the fact" of the same crime which we failed to report that someone else had committed? Has anyone ever been executed in America for a failure "to rat"?

Answer 7:

Under English-American common law, everyone who fails “to rat” vis-à-vis a felony is guilty of being an “accessory after the fact” to that felony. Indeed, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in 1980 that merely knowing that the F.B.I. was looking for someone for bank robbery and failing to contact the F.B.I. with information about how to find that person is sufficient for conviction as an “accessory after the fact to robbery.”

Probably the most famous conviction as an “Accessory After The Fact” involved the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln at Washington DC’s Ford Theatre by actor John Wilkes Booth who broke a leg during his escape. Booth fled on horseback and, after traveling a considerable distance in the middle of the night, stopped at the home of Dr. Samuel Mudd to obtain treatment for his broken leg. Even though Mudd and Booth were strangers before the incident and even though Mudd was not aware that Booth had done anything wrong, Mudd was convicted as an “Accessory After The Fact To Treason” and sentenced to life imprisonment. Ordinarily, being an “Accessory After The Fact” requires that the defendant have knowledge that a crime has been committed. However, the case of Mudd demonstrates that this knowledge can be “constructive” rather than “actual” – that Mudd should have known that Booth had committed a crime since he had been racing on horseback across the countryside in the middle of the night with a broken leg.

Although Dr. Mudd was the most famous “accessory after the fact” to Lincoln’s assassination because he did not have actual knowledge of the events and was only sentenced to life imprisonment, eight others were tried and convicted, of which four were hanged.

Question 8:

What did Arizona's new immigration law of 1/1/2008 do?

Answer 8:

Arizona’s 2008 immigration law made it unlawful to hire illegal aliens – but unlike the 1986 federal immigration law doing the same thing, Arizona has enforced its law.

Question 9:

What did Arizona's recent immigration law do?

Answer 9:

The principal features are describe in Answer 1 above.

Simultaneously with signing the law, Arizona Governor Janice Brewer signed an Executive Order that requires that all Arizona state and local law enforcement officers take a new training course that, among other things --

"shall provide clear guidance to law enforcement officials regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and shall make clear that an individual's race, color or national origin alone cannot be grounds for reasonable suspicion to believe that any law has been violated."

Please note that this parrots the U.S. Justice Department's guidelines for federal law enforcement officers which is posted oin the next secion of this bulleting board = "Reference Materials."

Question 10:

Is racial profiling legal/constitutional?

Answer 10:

The ACLU takes the view that racial profiling violates the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause, and also violates the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment requirement of equal protection under the law.

The term “racial profiling” appears in only two U.S. Supreme Court cases = Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) and Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) both of which approved arrests when another factor was present = in Atwater there was a driver seatbelt violation (the victims argued that only a citation should have been issued and the arrest was an unconstitutional “seizure”) and in Wardlow, there was fleeing upon seeing police officers in an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking which resulted in an arrest following which there was discovered an illegal handgun during a protective pat down after police caught up with the fleer.

However, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Montero-Camargo (2000) remarked that a Hispanic appearance could not be used as a factor by border patrol agents in making an investigatory stop – though the remark was not part of the ruling because the court held that there were enough other factors to justify the stop.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Justice issued in June 2003 (last updated 7/25/2008) its “Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.” The document (which is posted in the next section of this bulletin board - "Reference Materials") takes a two-pronged approach = (1) for “national security and border integrity” anything goes so long as it is constitutional (and, as we noted above, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided very little guidance on what is unconstitutional in this area), and (2) for “traditional law enforcement activities” the federal government has voluntarily restricted itself as follows: (A) race or ethnicity may not be used to any extent in making routine or spontaneous law-enforcement decisions, but (B) with respect to a specific investigation, “trustworthy information” regarding race or ethnicity may be considered (for example, a credible witness saying the perpetrator was Caucasian).

Question 11:

As a non-legal matter, should non-U.S. citizens be permitted to work in the U.S. for less than the federal minimum wage - whether they work "off the books" or whether they work "on the books" but are charged exorbitant amounts for food and shelter?

Answer 11:

If we believe that the federal minimum wage is a moral imperative, then it should apply to non-U.S. citizens working in the U.S.

Question 12:

As a non-legal matter, should non-U.S. citizens be permitted to work in the U.S. for at least the federal minimum wage while there is unemployment in the U.S. - or should the wages for those jobs be forced by the exclusion of foreign workers to rise to a level at which otherwise-unemployed Americans would be willing to perform them? (After all, "everything has its price"!!!)

Answer 12:

It depends on whether you believe our duty to help the world’s poor is as strong as our duty to help our own poor.

Question 13:

How much would be withheld (state and local income taxes, social security, medicare, etc.) from, say, an agricultural worker in California earning the federal minimum wage?

Answer 13:

First, California is one of 19 states with its own minimum wage ($8.00/hour) that exceeds the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour).

A standard 2,000 hours * $8.00/hour = $16,000. Assuming the employer charges $8,000 for housing provided on the premises as a condition of employment and for lunches in the fields, only $8,000 remains subject to tax.

For federal income tax, the personal exemption is $3,650 plus the standard deduction for a single person of $5,700 (which is the same as 50% of the standard deduction on the joint return of a married couple) = $9,350. Accordingly, no federal income tax would be withheld even if the worker has no other dependents.

For California state income tax, the standard deduction for a single person is $3,637 (which is the same as 50% of the standard deduction on the joint return of a married couple). The tax on the remaining $4,367 for single (or married filing separately) = $45 less a $98 credit for one personal exemption. According, no California income tax would be withheld even if the worker has no other dependents.

Federal social security tax at 6.2% and medicare tax at 1.45% * $8,000 = $692.

Question 14:

Would it be legal for a state to impose a special tax on American employers of non-American employees to cover such services as medical care for the workers, schooling for their children, etc.?

Answer 14:

Yes.

Question 15:

If states were permitted to impose such taxes on American employers, would that take care of all of the concerns that have inflamed American public opinion and led to the enactment of the most recent Arizona immigration law?

Answer 15:

No.

Arizonan backers of the new law cite the drug-gang wars that are raging just south of the border and claim that they have spilled across the border into the U.S. Arizona Governor Janice Brewer’s signing statement said, among other things:

“Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state, to my Administration and to me, as your Governor and as a citizen. There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life. We cannot delay while the destruction happening south of our international border creeps its way north. We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”

My recollection is that there was a recent TV video clip of U.S. Senator John Kyl of Arizona claiming that 87% of illegal aliens captured in Arizona are criminals. However, I have not been able, without spending an inordinate amount of time, to locate that clip. If anyone has time to “chase that rabbit,” it would be nice to confirm that it was Sen. Kyl and to try to ascertain what that statistic means. My recollection is that there was no further explanation of the 87%, but if we can track it back to the source, it would be nice to know what portion of the 87% were guilty of Jean Valjean-type crimes (stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving children), guilty of immigration law violations (presumably in the past or the statistic would have been 100%), etc., vs. violent crimes.

Question 16:

Did President Obama pledge to Latino voters during the 2008 campaign that he would tackle immigration reform during his first year in office?

Answer 16:

Yes. In this regard, he has received a lot of criticism from Latino political representatives.

Question 17:

Is immigration reform likely to be tackled any time soon?

Answer 17:

No. Republicans would like to keep the issue in order to bludgeon Democrats. Please see Q&A 18 for why Democrats don’t want to address the issue.

Question 18:

Are the dim prospects for immigration reform any time soon due to the fact that Latinos, who tend to be family-oriented Roman Catholics, would likely vote Republican once immigration reform has been addressed?

Answer 18:

Yes.

Question 19:

In this regard, how long does gratitude last in politics?

Answer 19:

The old adage = gratitude lasts only until the next election!!!


Question 20:

Are there any other considerations that we should be discussing on June 9th? And are there any policy recommendations that have been overlooked that we should be making in one of our six-degrees-of-separation e-mail campaigns?

Answer 20:

Please bring your ideas on June 9th and, as a courtesy to others, post it in this section of our bulletin board = "Participant Comments." (If you are not registered for the bulletin board, please press your “reply” button and type “registration requested” + a user name.)

To start your creative juices flowing, I would offer the following two suggestions.

First, President Obama said in his health-care speech last September 9th that the new legislation would not cover illegal aliens, to which Rep. Joseph Wilson of S.C. famously said: “You lie.” In addition, the new Arizona immigration law denies to illegal aliens any state/local benefits and, to the extent permitted by federal law, denies federal benefits administered by the state (e.g., Medicaid). THIS IS A TRAVESTY!!! We should recommend that all illegal aliens, especially children, be given all public benefits (school, medical care, etc.) accorded citizens and that the cost of such benefits should be placed on the employers of illegal aliens as a special tax, fine, whatever.

Second, we fought a civil war over the issue of slavery. Hiring illegal aliens, in addition to being unlawful, can constitute de facto slavery because of what the illegal alien will tolerate from the employer to avoid discovery of her/his illegal status by others. Accordingly, existing law against hiring illegal aliens should be enforced to eliminate de facto slavery.