Supreme Court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses

[Hunter44]

I say about frigging time!!

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 aliens, 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.

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."

[twa]

"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."

Almost unbelievable the feds fight the states on this kinda crap

[TimmySmith]

The Federal Government created a database for use in hiring that it does not require people to use in hiring. Arizona instructs businesses to use the database and the dissenting judges say that using the database is depleting federal resources. Bizarre.

[elkabong82]

Twa, I have noticed you defend much of the actions of the right, especially when others are going off assumptions to paint a bad and assumptive picture of the right.

So where's the defense for the left here? You are operating off assumptions that the fed has no reasoning behind being against this AZ law. What I'm wondering is where is that same level of research and defense that you give the right?

The fed holds the stance that it is responsible for immigration, not the state. So the fed doesn't want to give up it's power nor have anyone else interefering with its operations. And they operate under the Supremacy clause of the Constistution. Twa, weren't you just defending Gov. Walker the other day for sticking to his state constitution? So why blast the fed when it too is sticking to the Constitution?

And for the record, I am in favor of this move. However, I hope people are aware that it possibly could create a large group of illegals unable to find work who then resort to crime to survive. We have a lot of illegals in our country, and simply cutting them off could be a dangerous solution. Sure the pundits can sit back and say the fed is only fighting this because of its constituency (eventho illegals can't vote), but usually there is more going on. I think a percentage law, or a law that acts on a certain number of violations within a certain timeframe, might be better in dealing with preventing mass hirings of illegals. Another problem is the potential for racial profiling, where employers typically avoid hispanics "just to be safe." I doubt it becomes a large issue, but it could become an issue none-the-less. AZ other immigration law is the one I'm worried about.

[Guest Spearfeather]

Twa, I have noticed you defend much of the actions of the right, especially when others are going off assumptions to paint a bad and assumptive picture of the right.

So where's the defense for the left here? You are operating off assumptions that the fed has no reasoning behind being against this AZ law. What I'm wondering is where is that same level of research and defense that you give the right?

.

Well. it is a little strange, having the President stick his nose up in the air and call the Arizona law " misguided " when he refuses to enforce Federal Laws on the books, that basically mirror the Arizona law, and then calls those in support of the Arizona law, " our enemies. "

[twa]

Elka..I can't defend the indefensible

The Feds have abused any benefit of doubt with regards to enforcing immigration and have presented no reasonable defense for their actions

Why speak of the supremacy of federal law and regs and in the same breath castigate states for using them?

\

There IS no defense for the Left in this case...though I would not assign it to the left,but rather to the pandering class

added

According to the ones that determine constitutionality ,they ain't got a case nor pillar to lean on.

[elkabong82]

Well. it is a little strange, having the President stick his nose up in the air and call the Arizona law " misguided " when he refuses to enforce Federal Laws on the books, that basically mirror the Arizona law, and then calls those in support of the Arizona law, " our enemies. "

When has he refused to enforce federal laws in these circumstances? Or do you mean address more attention to? Right now that's not an easy thing to do with our deficit and economy. I agree with this law from AZ, though it may have some negative consequences along with the positive, and I think the fed. would be better served working in cooperation with the states, that way the fed doesn't burden the entire financial burden and the state gets to secure its own borders. But the fed. uses the supremacy clause. I don't know their whole argument for why they want to maintain fed control on the issue of busnisses hiring illegals instead of allowing a state to enforce such under federal guidelines, but there likely is a reason behind wanting to shoulder the entire responsibility. I disagree with that method still though.

[twa]

Court humor

enjoy footnote 6 in Roberts’ opinion:

“It should not be surprising that the two dissents have sharply different views on how to read the statute. That is the sort of thing that can happen when statutory analysis is so untethered from the text.”

http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=7089

[elkabong82]

Elka..I can't defend the indefensible

The Feds have abused any benefit of doubt with regards to enforcing immigration and have presented no reasonable defense for their actions

Why speak of the supremacy of federal law and regs and in the same breath castigate states for using them?

\

There IS no defense for the Left in this case...though I would not assign it to the left,but rather to the pandering class

added

According to the ones that determine constitutionality ,they ain't got a case nor pillar to lean on.

According to who exactly? Because Obama's admin isn't the first to use the Supremacy Clause with immigration.

You defended Gov. Walker for supporting his state constitution on a matter you said you disagreed with him on. Yet now you're chastising the fed. for supporting the Constitution on this matter though you disagree with them. Hmmm, I wonder what the difference then is when Walker and the fed. are both upholding the constitution.

I get it. A Republican upholds a part of his state constitution that you disagree with, but you defend him throughout a thread for it, eventhough the ban he was upholding is discriminatory and wrong. But a Democratic fed. upholds the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to maintain control over immigration regulation, you disagree with it, and you immediately bash them. So basically you'll defend a bigot simply because he is a Republican following the Constitution though you think the ban is wrong, yet you'll bash the fed. for following the Constitution though you think their reasoning is wrong simply because it's run by the Democrats. Peculiar.

[twa]

What part of SCOTUS ruled the feds are not upholding/following the constitution in this matter did you miss?

Strange that in Wis I supported letting the court decide and in this matter as well...seems a consistent position to support the rule of law instead of simply the rule of the feds.

add

What ban are you referring to?....the Wis matter was over Walker petitioning the court for a ruling on defending a law against a conflicting amendment.

Walker cannot ban the SS registry....only the court can.

[Larry]

Me, I have a problem when a state wants to conflict with federal law.

(And not always in that case, either. IMO, it's outrageous for the feds to claim that states can't pass pollution laws that are tougher than the federal ones, for example. But, I'd have a problem if a state wanted to pass tougher immigration laws. Or foreign trade laws.)

But this law doesn't do that, near as I can tell.

To me, if the feds want to claim that this is a civil rights violation, then it's a federal civil rights violation. It's their database.

And, to me, in order for the supremacy clause to kick in, the law has to conflict with the federal one. This one doesn't.

Nor does it have the racial profiling aspect that their previous attempt at immigration law contained.

Me, I don't see a problem with this law.

----------

(And I have to confess that I'm surprised to see the GOP rise up and pass a law that punished employers. Usually the GOP is firmly on the side that all corporations should be immune from all laws. Bravo for them.)

[Guest Spearfeather]

When has he refused to enforce federal laws in these circumstances? Or do you mean address more attention to?

Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement Hearing on Making Immigration Work for American Minorities

For Immediate Release

March 1, 2011 Contact: Jessica Baker, 202-225-3951

Chairman Smith: With unemployment at or over 9% for 21 months, jobs are scarce. And that is especially true in minority communities across the U.S.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January the unemployment rate for blacks was 16% and for Hispanics was 12%. These unemployment rates are well above the national average.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, seven million people are working in the U.S. illegally. These jobs should go to legal workers, many of whom would be minorities.

Virtually all credible studies show that competition from cheap foreign labor displaces American workers, including legal immigrants, or depresses their wages.

The Center for Immigration Studies found that low-skilled workers lose an average of $1,800 a year because of competition from illegal immigrants for their jobs. That’s a significant economic hit.

A study by Harvard Economist George Borjas shows that cheap immigrant labor has reduced the wages of American workers performing low-skilled jobs by 7.4%. That’s a huge wage cut!

But research is not the only proof. After illegal workers are arrested and detained during Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) worksite enforcement actions, many businesses replace them with American minorities.

The same was true when Georgia’s Crider Inc. lost over 600 illegal workers after an ICE worksite enforcement action. The company increased wages a dollar an hour and attracted legal workers, primarily black Americans.

There are stories like these all over the United States. Enforce immigration laws and unemployed Americans will be back on the payroll and earning a living for themselves and their families.

Unfortunately the Administration has almost stopped conducting worksite enforcement actions and prosecuting illegal workers.

Instead, they conduct I-9 audits and release the illegal workers so that they can walk down the street and take another job from an American worker.

Each time ICE arrests, detains or deports an illegal worker, it creates a job opportunity for an American worker. Each time the Department of Justice brings a criminal action against an employer who knowingly hired illegal workers, it sends a powerful message that their illegal employment will not be tolerated.

Unfortunately, worksite enforcement has plummeted under the Obama Administration. Administrative arrests have fallen 77% from 2008 to 2010. Criminal arrests have fallen 60%. Criminal indictments have fallen 57% and criminal convictions have fallen 66%.

With millions of Americans unemployed, it is hard to imagine a worse time to cut worksite enforcement efforts by more than half.

Not only could the Administration enforce immigration laws to help protect jobs for Americans, but they should also expand the use of the E-Verify system. It is the easiest way to help an employer know that their workforce is legal.

U.S. Businesses (SUSB), there were 5.9 million firms in the

United States in 2008. SUSB data are available on the Census Bureau’s website, http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/

index.html.

Immigration-Related Worksite Enforcement: Performance Measures

Congressional Research Service 7

Table 3. Administrative and Criminal Arrests in Worksite Enforcement Operations,

FY2003-FY2010

Fiscal

Year

Number of Individuals Arrested

on Administrative Charges

Number of Individuals Arrested

on Criminal Charges

2003 445 72

2004 685 165

2005 1,116 176

2006 3,667 716

2007 4,077 863

2008 5,184 1,103

2009 1,647 444

2010 1,217 448

Sources: CRS presentation of data from written statement of the Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary, U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, February 28, 2007 (FY2003-

FY2004); and from Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, July 1, 2008

(FY2005-FY2007), April 22, 2010 (FY2008-FY2009), and February 10, 2011 (FY2010).

Note: The same individual may be the subject of an administrative arrest and a criminal arrest; thus, there may

be double counting of some individuals.

During each year from FY2003 to FY2008, as shown in Table 3, the number of administrative

and criminal arrests in worksite enforcement operations increased; some of the yearly changes, as

from FY2005 to FY2006, were marked. In 2008 congressional testimony, DHS Secretary Michael

Chertoff highlighted the number of administrative and criminal arrests in worksite enforcement

operations in FY2007 as evidence of the progress being made by ICE on the worksite

enforcement front.20

Between FY2008 and FY2009, as indicated in Table 3, the number of individuals arrested on

administrative and criminal charges plummeted. The number of administrative arrests continued

to decrease between FY2009 and FY2010, while the number of criminal arrests increased

slightly. Overall, between FY2008 and FY2010 the number of administrative arrests in worksite

enforcement operations decreased by 77% and the number of criminal arrests decreased by 59%.

The reasons for these drops are unclear. It may be that they reflect, to some degree, ICE’s stated

renewed focus on employers.