Supreme Court to hear Arizona immigration law challenge

[Chris_]

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would hear a legal challenge by business, civil rights and immigration groups to an Arizona law that punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

The nation's highest court agreed to decide whether the 2007 state law infringed on federal immigration powers and should be struck down.

The law at issue in the case is different from the strict new Arizona immigration law passed earlier this year and criticized by President Barack Obama that requires the police to determine the immigration status of any person suspected of being in the country illegally.

The Obama administration last month urged the Supreme Court to rule that the 2007 law was preempted by federal immigration rules and would disrupt the careful legal balance that the U.S. Congress struck nearly 25 years ago.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R3CQ20100628?type=politicsNews

[Eupher]

The Obama administration last month urged the Supreme Court to rule that the 2007 law was preempted by federal immigration rules and would disrupt the careful legal balance that the U.S. Congress struck nearly 25 years ago.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R3CQ20100628?type=politicsNews

WTF? Ten point 8 million illegals in this country is a "careful legal balance"?!?

Translation, please!

[ConservativeMobster]

CAREFUL LEGAL BALANCE?  How about the balance of Executive and Judicial, Mr Obama?  Butt OUT!

[Gratiot]

It'll be really interesting to see what happens with this. 

[Alpha Mare]

That would be the law that Gov. Nappy signed, and is hardly ever invoked. She urged Pelosi and Reid to pass a similar national law.

If they win this, it will set precedent for all kinds of state laws that the Feds don't like.

[AllosaursRus]

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would hear a legal challenge by business, civil rights and immigration groups to an Arizona law that punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Operative word here is knowingly! Why the hell would the US Supremes need to hear this?

I haven't read the law, but if you have knowingly hired an illegal, it's against the frikkin' law, period! What part of "against the law" needs to be interpreted?

This is nothing more than Zero kowtowing to those who think they contributed to buying his election!! ****in' guy really is the closest thing we've ever had to Al Capone in the White House!

[Alpha Mare]

6. "KNOWINGLY EMPLOY AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS THE ACTIONS
 DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324A. THIS TERM SHALL BE
 INTERPRETED CONSISTENTLY WITH 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324A AND ANY
APPLICABLE FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

http://www.azca.com/html/pdf/hb2779c.pdf

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1324a

§ 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens

(3)  Defense
A person or entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section with respect to the hiring, recruiting, or referral for employment of an alien in the United States has established an affirmative defense that the person or entity has not violated paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such hiring, recruiting, or referral.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001324---a000-.html

[AllosaursRus]

Looks like they'll have to strike the Federal law before they can rule against Arizona's!

How the hell is that goin' to work?

[Peter3_1]

iS THERE ANYONE SANE LEFT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? These guys are total loonies.

[JohnnyReb]

iS THERE ANYONE SANE LEFT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? These guys are total loonies.

SANE: Something you catch fish with.....

Hey, I'm using a SCOTUS interpretation here.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Frankly this is a point of departure I have with many of the business talking heads on Fox Business, employers need to be punished just as much as illegals need to be curtailed, and if the Feds won't pursue it, screw them.  You can't leave all the incentives in place with no smackdown on the people paying them, and expect to ever curtail the flow.  Employing illegals combines a host of evils from pure serf labor exploitation to providing a safe harbor for identity theft.  It's like putting up signs warning about your home security system and then leaving half your valuable stuff in the open back of a pick-up truck on the next block.   

[Eupher]

And to use another angle/example, it's like overhauling health care without looking at tort reform.

[Gratiot]

Operative word here is knowingly!

Great catch, that mere word changes quite a bit!

[DumbAss Tanker]

Great catch, that mere word changes quite a bit!

But, bending over backwards to 'Not know' is no excuse.  Employers need to be held to a standard of due diligence, but not be turned into Gestapo block captains either, it's a tough line to walk - made much tougher by the business interests on the right that want to exploit the illegal labor, and political interests on the left that want to shield the illegal laborers themselves from deportation. 

[AllosaursRus]

But, bending over backwards to 'Not know' is no excuse.  Employers need to be held to a standard of due diligence, but not be turned into Gestapo block captains either, it's a tough line to walk - made much tougher by the business interests on the right that want to exploit the illegal labor, and political interests on the left that want to shield the illegal laborers themselves from deportation. 

I've had to show at least 2 pieces of ID for every job I've held since around '98. Don't see how an employer should be held to any more scrutiny than that, however, a class in spotting obvious fakes could be in order.

Then there are those who just don't give a damn! Most of those treat illegals as slave labor and need jailed, period!

[bkg]

One could argue that the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction here. 

I would personally like to see them choose to not take the challenge.

[AllosaursRus]

One could argue that the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction here. 

I would personally like to see them choose to not take the challenge.

You would think, but they've already agreed to hear it.

[Gratiot]

But, bending over backwards to 'Not know' is no excuse.  Employers need to be held to a standard of due diligence, but not be turned into Gestapo block captains either, it's a tough line to walk - made much tougher by the business interests on the right that want to exploit the illegal labor, and political interests on the left that want to shield the illegal laborers themselves from deportation.

Agreed.  The problem with the usage of "knowingly" would be it'd be on the prosecutor to prove in court that the employer was aware.  Even if they reasonably should have been aware by following proper business procedures, a simple case could become quite a challenge to prosecute.  It is a fine line...

[ConservativeMobster]

So E-VERIFY, I-9's, W4's, SS cards, photo ID are not enough to prove that an employer has actively tried to hire legals?  Sounds like a good case for National ID's.  Playing the devil here folks....no way do we need another layer of BS that would become as useless and passively enforced as the rest of our laws on immigration.  Busting the big guys such as Tyson probably put a damper on their lax hiring practices but it hasn't hurt the contractors or lawn people.  At least not in a big way.

[Eupher]

So E-VERIFY, I-9's, W4's, SS cards, photo ID are not enough to prove that an employer has actively tried to hire legals?  Sounds like a good case for National ID's.  Playing the devil here folks....no way do we need another layer of BS that would become as useless and passively enforced as the rest of our laws on immigration.  Busting the big guys such as Tyson probably put a damper on their lax hiring practices but it hasn't hurt the contractors or lawn people.  At least not in a big way.

How is it that a national ID card isn't just "another layer of BS"? That looks to me to be exactly that, with the forgers and the Illinois-style bureaucrats jumping in big-time to line their own pockets at taxpayer's expense.

[bkg]

How is it that a national ID card isn't just "another layer of BS"? That looks to me to be exactly that, with the forgers and the Illinois-style bureaucrats jumping in big-time to line their own pockets at taxpayer's expense.

Beyond the layer of BS, where does the Fed have the right to force a national ID anyway?

[ConservativeMobster]

How is it that a national ID card isn't just "another layer of BS"? That looks to me to be exactly that, with the forgers and the Illinois-style bureaucrats jumping in big-time to line their own pockets at taxpayer's expense.
[/quote

We agree Eupher,  I said it would be BS.

[rich_t]

Beyond the layer of BS, where does the Fed have the right to force a national ID anyway?

The same place that gives them the right to demand every citizen have a SS number.

[NHSparky]

So E-VERIFY, I-9's, W4's, SS cards, photo ID are not enough to prove that an employer has actively tried to hire legals?  Sounds like a good case for National ID's.  Playing the devil here folks....no way do we need another layer of BS that would become as useless and passively enforced as the rest of our laws on immigration.  Busting the big guys such as Tyson probably put a damper on their lax hiring practices but it hasn't hurt the contractors or lawn people.  At least not in a big way.

That's the whole problem--they ARE more than sufficient, if they're actually used properly and not just given short shrift.

Even implementation of a national ID wouldn't settle the issue.  Fake ID's are easy to come by (less so with biometrics), and if the current crop of employers don't give a shit about I-9's, E-verify, etc., what makes anyone think a national ID card would work any better?

[Eupher]

How is it that a national ID card isn't just "another layer of BS"? That looks to me to be exactly that, with the forgers and the Illinois-style bureaucrats jumping in big-time to line their own pockets at taxpayer's expense.

We agree Eupher,  I said it would be BS.

Hmm. I'm not getting the connection because you said, "Sounds like a good case for National ID's."