Supreme Court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses

[sappstuf]

Good decision and a common sense one. Of course, the Obama administration opposed it.

This is seperate law from the police asking immigration status when a person is stopped, but some of the arguments are the same. The States can have a role in enforcing immigration matters.


The Supreme Court has backed an Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants, a law that opponents, including the Obama administration, say steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.

The 5-3 ruling Thursday is a victory for supporters of immigration reform on the state level.

It was the first high court challenge to a variety of recent state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants, an issue that has become a political lightning rod.

The outcome could serve as a judicial warm-up for a separate high-profile challenge to a more controversial Arizona immigration reform law working its way through lower courts. That statute would, among other things, give local police a greater role in arresting suspected illegal immigrants.

The hiring case turned on whether state law tramples on federal authority.

"Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. "It relies solely on the federal government's own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government's own system for checking employee status."

Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007, allowing the state to suspend the licenses of businesses that "intentionally or knowingly" violate work-eligibility verification requirements. Companies would be required under that law to use E-Verify, a federal database to check the documentation of current and prospective employees. That database had been created by Congress as a voluntary, discretionary resource.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing federal law prohibits Arizona and other states from making E-Verify use mandatory. The group was supported by a variety of civil rights and immigration rights groups. The state countered that its broad licensing authority gives it the right to monitor businesses within its jurisdiction.

The Obama administration recommended a judicial review, and sided with businesses and civil rights groups.

A 1986 federal act significantly limited state power to separately regulate the hiring and employment of "unauthorized" workers. An exception was made for local "licensing and similar laws." Under the law, employees are required to review documentation to confirm someone's right to work in the United States, including checking the familiar I-9 immigration form. Civil and criminal penalties were strengthened, but businesses making a "good faith" effort to comply with I-9 procedures were generally immune from prosecution.

Roberts, backed by his four conservative colleagues, said "Arizona went the extra mile in ensuring that its law tracks (the federal law's) provisions in all material aspects."

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted E-Verify is a voluntary program, and said criticism that the federal government is not doing enough to enforce the law is irrelevant.

"Permitting states to make use of E-Verify mandatory improperly puts states in the position of making decisions ... that directly affect expenditure and depletion of federal resources," she wrote. Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.

Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case, since she had been the administration's solicitor general last year when the case was being appealed to the high court.

Gov. Jan Brewer had backed the law, telling CNN in December when the case was argued, "The bottom line is that we believe that if the (federal) government isn't going to do the job then Arizona is going to do the job. We are faced with a crisis."

This case could serve as a bellwether to how the court will view a larger, more controversial state immigration law from Arizona. Much of that statute was tossed out by a federal judge in August and is currently pending at a federal appeals court. It would, among other things, give police authority to check a person's immigration status if officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is in the country illegally.

The hiring case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (09-115).

[NormanPride]

Froz-nip

[okie52]

Obama was fighting hard against it in order to maintain that "delicate balance" that congress has fashioned over the years through non enforcement of our laws.

I'm sure many dems on capitol hill are glum today...the same dems that gave that scumbag Calderon a standing ovation as he blasted AZ for its laws with our wonderful president at his side.

[The Profit]

Obama was fighting hard against it in order to maintain that "delicate balance" that congress has fashioned over the years through non enforcement of our laws.

I'm sure many dems on capitol hill are glum today...the same dems that gave that scumbag Calderon a standing ovation as he blasted AZ for its laws with our wonderful president at his side.




Sapp, I agree with you. The SC held up the part of the law that punishes employers. Punishing employers (jail time and huge fines) is the only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration. It certainly makes more sense than building a damn fence.

[sappstuf]

Obama was fighting hard against it in order to maintain that "delicate balance" that congress has fashioned over the years through non enforcement of our laws.

I'm sure many dems on capitol hill are glum today...the same dems that gave that scumbag Calderon a standing ovation as he blasted AZ for its laws with our wonderful president at his side.

Where have you been Okie? Good to see you on here.

I'm sure Obama's next step will be to stop the E-Verify system in some fashion...

[SoonerHoops]

I'm generally opposed to whatever Jan Brewer agrees with, but I don't mind this law.

[The Profit]

Where have you been Okie? Good to see you on here.

I'm sure Obama's next step will be to stop the E-Verify system in some fashion...




Nope. Obama is a huge proponent of E-Verify. Obama has always believed that the best way to stop illegal immigration is to punish the employers. I think Arizona is too lenient on them. I would like to see a mandatory 5 year prison term and a minimum $100,000.00 fine per illegal employee. This would be levied on the CEO and or President of the company, and not some poor schmuck manager.

[okie52]

Where have you been Okie? Good to see you on here.

I'm sure Obama's next step will be to stop the E-Verify system in some fashion...

Just doing a lot of work....the oil patch is very busy right now. How are you doing Sapp?

I'm sure Obama will do the minimum he thinks he can get by with on this law.

[okie52]

Sapp, I agree with you. The SC held up the part of the law that punishes employers. Punishing employers (jail time and huge fines) is the only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration. It certainly makes more sense than building a damn fence.

Sapp??? I know you support punishing the employers and I agree. They are going to have to standardize employment hiring practices (like e verify) so that employers know what they must do to be compliant.

Still have to have border security....whether that is with landmines, drones or catapults. Main message to get across to illegals is "you're not wanted here".

[okie52]

Nope. Obama is a huge proponent of E-Verify. Obama has always believed that the best way to stop illegal immigration is to punish the employers. I think Arizona is too lenient on them. I would like to see a mandatory 5 year prison term and a minimum $100,000.00 fine per illegal employee. This would be levied on the CEO and or President of the company, and not some poor schmuck manager.

Yeah, that's why he fought this law and was going to offer illegals driver licenses and a pathway to citizenship. Can't get much tougher than that.

[The Profit]

Yeah, that's why he fought this law and was going to offer illegals driver licenses and a pathway to citizenship. Can't get much tougher than that.



The portion of the law that was upheld by the court deals with employers. He has always supported this. The court has not issued an opinion on the other parts of the law.

[okie52]

The portion of the law that was upheld by the court deals with employers. He has always supported this. The court has not issued an opinion on the other parts of the law.

Separate law done in 2007...not connected with the AZ illegal immigration law passed in april, 2010. Obama challenged both laws.

[okie52]

Obama Asks Supreme Court To Ax Ariz. Employer Sanction Lawjudicial watch ^ | Tue, 06/01/2010 - 11:11am

Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2010 5:16:34 PM by Bad~Rodeo

The Obama Administration has asked the Supreme Court to prohibit Arizona from enforcing a two-year-old measure—signed into law by former Governor Janet Napolitano—punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants.


Ironically, President Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary ardently supported the law when she signed it in 2007 though she refuses to comment on her boss’s campaign to eliminate it. Considered the nation’s toughest measure against businesses that hire illegal aliens, the Legal Arizona Workers Act requires employers to verify that employees are authorized to work in the U.S. Those caught hiring illegal workers are severely punished and can have their license revoked.


Legally challenged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, the law has been repeatedly upheld by lower courts. Last week the Obama Administration urged the Supreme Court to toss out those rulings by preventing Arizona from enforcing the measure because federal immigration law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants.


The Arizona law disrupts "a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country," according to a brief filed by the administration.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2525558/posts

Hardly the Obama that wants to punish employers....but he is good friends with Calderon.

[pphilfran]

Sapp, I agree with you. The SC held up the part of the law that punishes employers. Punishing employers (jail time and huge fines) is the only way to stop the problem of illegal immigration. It certainly makes more sense than building a damn fence.

How will they audit those businesses for compliance...currently we audit approximately 1/2 of 1%...

[The Profit]

How will they audit those businesses for compliance...currently we audit approximately 1/2 of 1%...




However they choose to do it, it will be better than trying to build a damn fence and then expecting it to work. Use to IRS to audit the businesses.

[Sooner_Tuf]

However they choose to do it, it will be better than trying to build a damn fence and then expecting it to work. Use to IRS to audit the businesses.

You want to use the IRS for Border Security? Really? :D

[The Profit]

You want to use the IRS for Border Security? Really? :D




No. I want to use the IRS to make certain that corrupt employers do not attempt to hire cheap illegal workers.

[Sooner_Tuf]

No. I want to use the IRS to make certain that corrupt employers do not attempt to hire cheap illegal workers.

Attempt? I see. What part of the IRS is that you think is suited to stop people from attempting to hire illegal workers.

If you want to stop them coming here illegally just make it illegal for them to own property here and seize everything they have. If there is no benefit for coming here they will not come. Take their money, their cars, their real estate, whatever.

That still doesn't address border security, drug smuggling, etc. But its a start.

[The Profit]

Attempt? I see. What part of the IRS is that you think is suited to stop people from attempting to hire illegal workers.

If you want to stop them coming here illegally just make it illegal for them to own property here and seize everything they have. If there is no benefit for coming here they will not come. Take their money, their cars, their real estate, whatever.

That still doesn't address border security, drug smuggling, etc. But its a start.





No, it must start with their ability to make money. Do away with that and you do away with the problem. It is really very simple. No more alien farm workers, no more alien roofers, lawn workers, builders, etc. Just give the jobs to American workers. Sure, prices will go up, but we can live with that.

[KantoSooner]

How about we start easy?

Obligation: verify that the name, ID and SSN match when someone applies for a job. Check it through E-Verify. Do that and you're golden. Seems like a very minor inconvenience for the employer.

Couple that with serious financial and jailtime penalties for Sr. management and/or owners. Allow defense for wilfull actions of HR groups, etc. (so you can't get your boss thrown in the pokie by hiring Jose without running the check).

See how that goes for a year or two.

My guess is that it would work pretty damn well. And, without jobs, no illegals will want to live here.

[sappstuf]

How about we start easy?

Obligation: verify that the name, ID and SSN match when someone applies for a job. Check it through E-Verify. Do that and you're golden. Seems like a very minor inconvenience for the employer.

Couple that with serious financial and jailtime penalties for Sr. management and/or owners. Allow defense for wilfull actions of HR groups, etc. (so you can't get your boss thrown in the pokie by hiring Jose without running the check).

See how that goes for a year or two.

My guess is that it would work pretty damn well. And, without jobs, no illegals will want to live here.

Will there be an E-Verify booth outside of Home Depot?? ;)

[The Profit]

How about we start easy?

Obligation: verify that the name, ID and SSN match when someone applies for a job. Check it through E-Verify. Do that and you're golden. Seems like a very minor inconvenience for the employer.

Couple that with serious financial and jailtime penalties for Sr. management and/or owners. Allow defense for wilfull actions of HR groups, etc. (so you can't get your boss thrown in the pokie by hiring Jose without running the check).

See how that goes for a year or two.

My guess is that it would work pretty damn well. And, without jobs, no illegals will want to live here.



I like it...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The politburo wanting to over-regulate free enterprise. Nothing new here.

[The Profit]

The politburo wanting to over-regulate free enterprise. Nothing new here.




Free enterprise ends at purposely hiring illegal workers to gain higher profits.

[KantoSooner]

Will there be an E-Verify booth outside of Home Depot?? ;)

Maybe. Probly not. To which we can say, who cares?

If you're a roofing contractor, you better swing by the office and get Doris to run the names before heading to the job. Yep, I just inconvenienced you. Too effing bad, Joe Roofer.

If you are a house owner and want to hire Jose to 'do the lawn'? I personally wouldn't waste enforcement bucks on your, but you'd still be liable.

If you want to hire itinerants from street corners, then figure a way to check a picture ID and a SSN against E-Verify. It's not that big a deal and I really have little sympathy for people who're hiring grey economy workers anyway.

I'm a strong fan of globalization and labor mobility, but some modicum of legality is not too much to expect.

[The Profit]

Will there be an E-Verify booth outside of Home Depot?? ;)




Not a bad idea Sappster...

[okie52]

I am sure Oklahoma will be soon to follow AZ on this issue...if we don't already have something pending right now.

And f*** the chambers of commerce.

[pphilfran]

Free enterprise ends at purposely hiring illegal workers to gain higher profits.

And free enterprise is using the illegals that our leadership in DC are catering to...

[pphilfran]

How about we start easy?

Obligation: verify that the name, ID and SSN match when someone applies for a job. Check it through E-Verify. Do that and you're golden. Seems like a very minor inconvenience for the employer.

Couple that with serious financial and jailtime penalties for Sr. management and/or owners. Allow defense for wilfull actions of HR groups, etc. (so you can't get your boss thrown in the pokie by hiring Jose without running the check).

See how that goes for a year or two.

My guess is that it would work pretty damn well. And, without jobs, no illegals will want to live here.

I don't have a problem with this...a good start...

[The Profit]

And free enterprise is using the illegals that our leadership in DC are catering to...




Not really, and you know that. The illegal Mexicans were coaxed into the country under the Reagan administration (the first 3 million of them) to give Reagan's California farming buddies some cheap labor.

[bigfatjerk]

How about we start easy?

Obligation: verify that the name, ID and SSN match when someone applies for a job. Check it through E-Verify. Do that and you're golden. Seems like a very minor inconvenience for the employer.

Couple that with serious financial and jailtime penalties for Sr. management and/or owners. Allow defense for wilfull actions of HR groups, etc. (so you can't get your boss thrown in the pokie by hiring Jose without running the check).

See how that goes for a year or two.

My guess is that it would work pretty damn well. And, without jobs, no illegals will want to live here.

I think I like Gary Johnson's plan of just having a work visa for all illegals that live here. But the only problems left if we have a work visa program is the drug trade. Which we can just get rid of by legalizing marijuana and basically getting states to tax it. Worked for prohibition of alcohol. It would work for marijuana.

[pphilfran]

Not really, and you know that. The illegal Mexicans were coaxed into the country under the Reagan administration (the first 3 million of them) to give Reagan's California farming buddies some cheap labor.

Then why hasn't E Verify been mandated for use by all?

[bigfatjerk]

Not really, and you know that. The illegal Mexicans were coaxed into the country under the Reagan administration (the first 3 million of them) to give Reagan's California farming buddies some cheap labor.

Reagan made a stupid decision to give amnesty because he didn't do it the right way. I'm for more illegal immigrants really. But we need to keep tabs on them so we don't have the drug trade we have and illegal human smuggling and basically slavery referred to some in this thread. I'm against ID for all citizens. I think that's a little too far. But making sure all illegals have work visas and are basically taxed will solve most of the border problems.

[pphilfran]

Reagan made a stupid decision to give amnesty because he didn't do it the right way. I'm for more illegal immigrants really. But we need to keep tabs on them so we don't have the drug trade we have and illegal human smuggling and basically slavery referred to some in this thread. I'm against ID for all citizens. I think that's a little too far. But making sure all illegals have work visas and are basically taxed will solve most of the border problems.

How do we keep tabs on 10 million or more illegals?

It will be impossible to audit every business in the US....trying to audit outside the workplace (irs data) won't cut it...

I always use a multiple approach when attacking problems...

We should have a fence...

We should mandate E Verify...

We should fine employers that knowingly hire E Verify...

We should deport those illegals that we find and impound all their personal holding in the US....

[okie52]

Not really, and you know that. The illegal Mexicans were coaxed into the country under the Reagan administration (the first 3 million of them) to give Reagan's California farming buddies some cheap labor.

Your boy Carter was trying to beat Ronnie to the punch, and as you continue to ignore evidence to the contrary, illegals were a problem long before Ronnie took office.

Certainly don't want to excuse Ronnie for his amnesty mistake, just noting that Carter tried to beat him to it.



by Jimmy Carter, 1977

It had become apparent by the late 1970s that the problem of illegal aliens was one of the most pressing in the United States. These illegal aliens, who numbered as many as ten million according to some estimates, lived mainly in the southwestern states (since most of them came from Mexico), but there were significant numbers in the large northern cities as well. They were often exploited and lived in fear of the authorities, but they also performed essential economic services. Many proposals had already been put forth when President Jimmy Carter on August 4, 1977, sent to Congress a message concerning illegal aliens. That portion dealing with "amnesty" for illegal residents in the country is reprinted here.

http://www.answers.com/topic/amnesty-for-illegal-aliens

[bigfatjerk]

How do we keep tabs on 10 million or more illegals?

It will be impossible to audit every business in the US....trying to audit outside the workplace (irs data) won't cut it...

I always use a multiple approach when attacking problems...

We should have a fence...

We should mandate E Verify...

We should fine employers that knowingly hire E Verify...

We should deport those illegals that we find and impound all their personal holding in the US....

I'm for an approach going after border control also. But trying to deport illegals is harder than just saying so because you have a lot of people like the one in San Francisco that won't follow the laws and won't deport illegals.

Really we wouldn't be worrying that much border control if we didn't have a welfare system and if we didn't have federalized drug control.

[okie52]

I'm for an approach going after border control also. But trying to deport illegals is harder than just saying so because you have a lot of people like the one in San Francisco that won't follow the laws and won't deport illegals.

Really we wouldn't be worrying that much border control if we didn't have a welfare system and if we didn't have federalized drug control.


Another wrong to right....sanctuary cities should be punished and have all federal funding stopped.

[SoonerNate]

Another wrong to right....sanctuary cities should be punished and have all federal funding stopped.

I live in one. :mad: Are they doing this?

[okie52]

I live in one. :mad: Are they doing this?

No, they aren't being punished. No president has even suggested it (that I know of).

[okie52]

Bush and mcCain were also horrible on illegal immigration.

[okie52]

Does anyone know if OK has a bill pending that is similar to AZ's employment law?

[Blue]

No, it must start with their ability to make money. Do away with that and you do away with the problem. It is really very simple. No more alien farm workers, no more alien roofers, lawn workers, builders, etc. Just give the jobs to American workers. Sure, prices will go up, but we can live with that.

I'd pay a white boy roofer half of what I'd pay a Hispanic bc thats what they are worth.

[okie52]

I'd pay a white boy roofer half of what I'd pay a Hispanic bc thats what they are worth.

$4.00 an hour seems a little cheap. But the illegals appreciate your property taxes.

[Blue]

$4.00 an hour seems a little cheap. But the illegals appreciate your property taxes.

How about $70 a square?

[Midtowner]

I didn't think the SCOTUS would reach this result, but I'm damn glad they did.

[okie52]

How about your schools and hospitals? How's that going to work for you?

[Blue]

How about your schools and hospitals? How's that going to work for you?

Who are you talking to?

[Midtowner]

How about your schools and hospitals? How's that going to work for you?

There's a case on the books for schools. This would seemingly reopen that case as it was, IMHO, wrongly decided. The SCOTUS said that there was no rational basis for denying public education to illegal aliens. This case would seem to run contra to that position.

A country who cannot pay its bills shouldn't be paying dollar one to support illegals aliens.

[okie52]

Who are you talking to?

You...if you think illegals are really cheap labor.

[okie52]

There's a case on the books for schools. This would seemingly reopen that case as it was, IMHO, wrongly decided. The SCOTUS said that there was no rational basis for denying public education to illegal aliens. This case would seem to run contra to that position.

A country who cannot pay its bills shouldn't be paying dollar one to support illegals aliens.

The Californians passed a prop by about a 2 to 1 margin in 1992 to deny illegals benefits. The prop was thrown out by an appellate court and never further challenged due to an incoming governors promise not to pursue it. A total miscarriage of justice.

[Blue]

You...if you think illegals are really cheap labor.

I think we misunderstood each other. I believe hispanics are worth the money they get. I would pay them more than others in my business bc they work harder and in fact I do.