Judge rules on Arizona immigration law

[TheMercenary]

I was listening to NPR this weekend and they did a great segment on the use of numbers in news reports. The issue of illegal aliens was mentioned as an example. The point was made that the number in isolation is really not a useful measurement if it is taken in isolation.

[TheMercenary]

This is what I was speaking about.

These estimates and claims rest on several annual efforts to count illegal immigrants in the U.S. The nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2008 the nationwide population was 11.9 million, and half a million in Arizona. The federal Department of Homeland Security and the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., research group that opposes increased immigration, agree on a figure of 10.8 million for 2009, with DHS putting the Arizona population at 460,000, down from 560,000 a year earlier.

But as my print column notes this week, these estimates are limited by several factors that make it difficult for researchers to count this population. No major government survey, including the decennial census now under way, asks Americans about their citizenship status. Thus estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in the country are indirect and possibly far off from the correct count.

These studies rely on census surveys, and assume that about 10% of illegal immigrants aren’t counted in these surveys. But that figure largely is based on a 2001 survey of Mexican-born people living in Los Angeles. “I do not advise use of my estimated undercounts for the 2000 census outside of L.A. county, nor for migrants from other nations,” said study co-author Enrico Marcelli, assistant professor of sociology at San Diego State University. “However, demographers do not have any other empirical evidence at the moment with which to proceed.”

One concern is that the nearly two in five households who didn’t respond to the 2001 survey may have included a disproportionately large number who also didn’t respond to census interviewers. Marcelli said further study would be needed to test that possibility, but he noted the extent of the efforts to select a representative sample and to put respondents at ease in order to elicit honest answers.

“As far as I know, there has not been a new, serious attempt to estimate the undercount of illegal immigrants in the census,” said Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies.

Further...

Larger estimates also sometimes are based on border-patrol counts of apprehensions, which are far from reliable proxies. No one is sure of how many people are missed for each one who is caught trying to cross into the U.S. illegally. Many of those who do get through may return quickly, or cross back and forth. Also, some people are caught more than once, inflating the count.

“It seems like we’re not missing that many bodies in the United States,” said Camarota, referring to the gap between the 20 million figure and his own.

The immigrant counters generally have seen a decline in the illegal-immigration population. “Economic drivers are very, very powerful” in lowering the illegal-immigrant population, said Hans Johnson, associate director of the Public Policy Institute of California. Others point to stepped-up enforcement efforts.

However, because of all the assumptions baked into these numbers, such drops come with so much statistical uncertainty that they may not be statistically significant. “The methodology for doing these estimates is not really designed to measure year-to-year change,” Passel said.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/the-...mmigrants-937/

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

I think some of the Judge's reasoning make me think she is either a little biased toward illegals or just stupid. Why strike down a part of the law requiring a check of immigration status before being released from jail?

The judge didn't strike down any part of the law; she said that the most controversial parts couldn't take effect until the case had been decided, which seems pretty reasonable to me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Semantics, a law delayed is a law denied.

[Happy Monkey]

Only if Arizona loses, in which case it should be denied.

[classicman]

I didn't realize that HM - Now that I think about it thats even worse than striking it down.

[Happy Monkey]

In what way? It's extremely common when the constitutionality of laws is in question. It's better to delay a constitutional law than to enact an unconstitutional one.

[classicman]

I admittedly do not know what her "job" was in the situation, but she apparently didn't make a ruling. Instead of ruling for or against, she just sent the issue upstairs.

[Happy Monkey]

She didn't make a ruling because the trial hasn't started yet.

[classicman]

But apparently she did...

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Semantics, a law delayed is a law denied.

Key word being semantics.

[Happy Monkey]

What are you talking about?

She issued a preliminary injunction, preventing certain aspects of the law from taking effect until the lawsuit takes its course. She didn't issue a final ruling on the law, because the lawsuit hasn't happened yet!

If a law is potentially unconstitutional, it shouldn't go into effect until its constitutionality has been determined. That's the type of situation that preliminary injunctions are for.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What are you talking about?

What, indeed?

[classicman]

Bold mine - obviously...

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What are you talking about?

She issued a preliminary injunction, ~snip~

She didn't issue a final ruling on the law,

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The judge didn't strike down any part of the law;

she said that the most controversial parts couldn't take effect

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Semantics, a law delayed is a law denied.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

She didn't make a ruling ...

I'm sure it's perfectly normal and common.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by classicman

I think the decisions is pretty much what I expected. Its going to get punted upstream anyway.

Kept the obvious parts that were compliant and put "on hold" those that were in question. I like that she didn't rule with an "all-or-nothing" decision.

Originally Posted by classicman

Oh yes. I find it rather ironic that this administration has been saying publicly that they are immigration friendly while the numbers of deportations have increased.
They have done an excellent job of playing both sides of the issue.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Here Obama does what you want, in bunches, but you guys find ways to casually dismiss it.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The judge didn't strike down any part of the law; she said that the most controversial parts couldn't take effect until the case had been decided, which seems pretty reasonable to me.

Originally Posted by classicman

I didn't realize that HM - Now that I think about it thats even worse than striking it down.

Originally Posted by classicman

I admittedly do not know what her "job" was in the situation, but she apparently didn't make a ruling. Instead of ruling for or against, she just sent the issue upstairs.

Originally Posted by classicman

But apparently she did...


Key word being semantics.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

~snip~ That's the type of situation that preliminary injunctions are for.

Originally Posted by classicman

Bold mine - obviously...

I'm sure it's perfectly normal and common.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

What, indeed?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Bold mine - obviously...
I'm sure it's perfectly normal and common.

There was no bold, except for the usernames.

Shawnee's post shows that you understood this stuff four days ago. What happened?