PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Supreme Court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses


Donger
05-26-2011, 10:35 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/26/scotus.arizona.law/index.html?hpt=T2

Washington (CNN) -- 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).

mlyonsd
05-26-2011, 10:42 AM
'Sanity' with a rare win.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-26-2011, 10:45 AM
'Sanity' with a rare win.

True but how will lawns get mowed now? Will Mcdonalds now shut it's doors?

DJ's left nut
05-26-2011, 10:50 AM
Oh feel free to kiss my ass, CNN.

"Roberts, backed by his four conservative colleagues..."

Since when the hell was Justice Kennedy considered a 'conservative'? Just drop the pretense already and come right out as Democratic supporters.

Nah, there's no mention of the fact that the 3 major 'liberal' judges fell on one side (or that Kagal would have as well), just that the damn dirty conservatives all supported it - facts be damned.

jjjayb
05-26-2011, 11:01 AM
Oh feel free to kiss my ass, CNN.

"Roberts, backed by his four conservative colleagues..."

Since when the hell was Justice Kennedy considered a 'conservative'? Just drop the pretense already and come right out as Democratic supporters.

Nah, there's no mention of the fact that the 3 major 'liberal' judges fell on one side (or that Kagal would have as well), just that the damn dirty conservatives all supported it - facts be damned.

Come on man. There's no such thing as media bias. ;)

talastan
05-26-2011, 11:11 AM
At least there is some common sense being shown today. Nothing wrong with making employers double check their hirings to make sure they aren't part of the problem. It also provides some accountability to the businesses that are hiring illegals to stop doing so. Of course the DOJ and DHS will just not accept any illegals for deportation.

Bowser
05-26-2011, 11:16 AM
Most excellent.

mlyonsd
05-26-2011, 11:37 AM
This could end up being a real big deal depending on what other states do with it.

vailpass
05-26-2011, 11:40 AM
Bring it on. Question is will it be enforced?

Otter
05-26-2011, 03:57 PM
"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.

Unreal.

Let's see what Bum Fuck Barry can come up with next to protect illegal invaders from his own states trying to enforce the laws already on the books and protect citizens of the USA.

What a bunch of useless tit bags we have for a government.

RedNeckRaider
05-26-2011, 04:18 PM
Unreal.

Let's see what Bum **** Barry can come up with next to protect illegal invaders from his own states trying to enforce the laws already on the books and protect citizens of the USA.

What a bunch of useless tit bags we have for a government.

The right has done nothing on this issue. At least Barry is smart enough to harvest votes on this. You are dead on with the bolded part, both parties are worthless as tits on a boar hog~

alnorth
05-26-2011, 06:28 PM
Cool. This was the easiest, and most likely to succeed, case that was headed for the supreme court. Even the 9th circuit was fine with the mandatory E-verify and shutting down employers who knowingly hire illegals. This was a rare case where the supreme court affirmed a controversial 9th circuit ruling.

Arizona's SB 1070 law was quickly blocked by every court so far and is less likely to survive review.

ClevelandBronco
05-26-2011, 08:52 PM
Great news. Now increase the penalties and enforce the law aggressively.

alnorth
05-26-2011, 09:05 PM
Great news. Now increase the penalties and enforce the law aggressively.

well, the penalty in this case is pretty tough. The state can yank the business license, effectively shutting down the business in the state.

The state probably cant go further because federal law pre-empts civil and criminal penalties against employers who hire illegals, except for license laws. So, since that was the crack in the federal law, Arizona dove head-first into that crack.

That was this whole case, legal wonks can explain it in a far more confusing fashion, but in plain english, the question was would yanking business licenses because you employ illegals be pre-empted by federal law or not?

ClevelandBronco
05-26-2011, 09:14 PM
well, the penalty in this case is pretty tough. The state can yank the business license, effectively shutting down the business in the state.

The state probably cant go further because federal law pre-empts civil and criminal penalties against employers who hire illegals, except for license laws. So, since that was the crack in the federal law, Arizona dove head-first into that crack.

That was this whole case, legal wonks can explain it in a far more confusing fashion, but in plain english, the question was would yanking business licenses because you employ illegals be pre-empted by federal law or not?

Damn. I want to see employers doing time.

alnorth
05-26-2011, 11:15 PM
Damn. I want to see employers doing time.

they can, but only if the feds prosecute.

notorious
05-26-2011, 11:27 PM
Step in the right direction.

KC native
05-26-2011, 11:48 PM
Contrary to what many of you probably think, I have absolutely no problem with this. These people will stop coming here when they can't get jobs anymore.

Mr. Kotter
05-27-2011, 09:38 AM
Contrary to what many of you probably think, I have absolutely no problem with this. These people will stop coming here when they can't get jobs anymore.

Exactly. When businesses are held accountable for turning a blind eye, illegals won't have reason to come.

ROYC75
05-27-2011, 10:10 AM
:clap::clap::clap:

USA +1
Illegal Mexicans - 1
Obama - 2

Now crack the whip on the employers & ship the illegals out.

Otter
05-27-2011, 10:22 AM
Exactly. When businesses are held accountable for turning a blind eye, illegals won't have reason to come.

What about the free education and citizenship they get for plopping out a baby across the north side of the line?

Don't get me wrong jobs are a big reason they come but there's also a whole lot of other benefits that need to be taken away and laws enforced before "illegals won't have a reason to come".

johnny961
05-27-2011, 10:26 AM
Step in the right direction.

Agreed. More states need to take a firmer stance with regards to illegals.

vailpass
05-27-2011, 10:56 AM
What about the free education and citizenship they get for plopping out a baby across the north side of the line?

Don't get me wrong jobs are a big reason they come but there's also a whole lot of other benefits that need to be taken away and laws enforced before "illegals won't have a reason to come".

Yep. Not all of these criminals violated our borders just to work...

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/05/25/20110525west-phoenix-drophouse-100-plus-people-inside-abrk.html

johnny961
05-27-2011, 11:11 AM
What about the free education and citizenship they get for plopping out a baby across the north side of the line?

Don't get me wrong jobs are a big reason they come but there's also a whole lot of other benefits that need to be taken away and laws enforced before "illegals won't have a reason to come".

The first thing you mentioned has always been a sore subject with me. Why should that baby be afforded rights generally associated with U.S. citizenship when neither parent had a legal right to be here in the first place?

vailpass
05-27-2011, 11:13 AM
The first thing you mentioned has always been a sore subject with me. Why should that baby be afforded rights generally associated with U.S. citizenship when neither parent had a legal right to be here in the first place?

Because we are a kind and compassionate nation. We used to be able to afford such a policy before Mexicans abused it to the point where it is no longer feasible.

Mexico, the turd in the legal immigration punch bowl.