The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris_ on June 28, 2010, 10:34:34 AM
-
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
-
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!
-
CAREFUL LEGAL BALANCE? How about the balance of Executive and Judicial, Mr Obama? Butt OUT!
-
It'll be really interesting to see what happens with this.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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?
-
iS THERE ANYONE SANE LEFT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? These guys are total loonies.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And to use another angle/example, it's like overhauling health care without looking at tort reform.
-
Operative word here is knowingly!
Great catch, that mere word changes quite a bit!
-
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.
-
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!
-
One could argue that the SCOTUS has no jurisdiction here.
I would personally like to see them choose to not take the challenge.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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."
-
The same place that gives them the right to demand every citizen have a SS number.
Kinda apples 'n oranges, seems to me.
SS numbers are applicable to social security, that pantheon of liberal virtue as espoused by FDR.
But a National ID isn't tied to any kind of social welfare program that I'm aware of....
...Yet.
But I'm well aware that Obama, Pelosi et. al. are chomping at the bit to enact yet more legislation for yet more federal control in our lives.
-
Barry, Reid, and PeloNazi, want nothing to do with national ID. They're afraid it would effect the number of demonRat votes they can illegally cast.
-
Barry, Reid, and PeloNazi, want nothing to do with national ID. They're afraid it would effect the number of demonRat votes they can illegally cast.
Yep. Any push by the Dems for a national ID would include a push to make it a voter ID a requirement.
-
Yep. Any push by the Dems for a national ID would include a push to make it a voter ID a requirement.
Every time a state tries to make voter ID a requirement, they're immediately attacked and sued by the left to knock it down! I think Arkansas was the last one.
-
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."
I'm jumbling my comments I reckon. Perhaps I should have placed that comment after the "devil's advocate"? I am against National ID's, especially when pushed by the Feds. The louder they scream for it the more I cringe. The argument for ID's is better security but we all agree (here at least, so far) that it's a scam of sorts. Right?
-
Every time a state tries to make voter ID a requirement, they're immediately attacked and sued by the left to knock it down! I think Arkansas was the last one.
Actually, it was Georgia.
-
I'm jumbling my comments I reckon. Perhaps I should have placed that comment after the "devil's advocate"? I am against National ID's, especially when pushed by the Feds. The louder they scream for it the more I cringe. The argument for ID's is better security but we all agree (here at least, so far) that it's a scam of sorts. Right?
Other than voter ID, it's a step toward Big Brother collecting info on law abiding citizens.
-
Actually, it was Georgia.
I knew it was a southern state. Haven't heard, did they find it "unconstitutional" as usual?
-
Voter ID has just passed in our Senate, closer than we've been I believe.
State senators approve bill on photo ID requirement
Associated Press
Friday, January 29, 2010
3 Comment(s)
COLUMBIA — Legislators have approved a compromise on a bill requiring South Carolina voters to show photo IDs before they cast a ballot.
Senators voted 36-2 on Thursday, ending two days of contentious debate. The bill requires another vote before returning to the House.
The compromise allows 15 days of early voting before an election without an excuse. It says voters can continue to vote absentee within a month of an election by giving an excuse for not being able to vote on Election Day, such as working or being on vacation. The law would not take effect this year.
Senate Democrats had been blocking the legislation with more than 1,000 amendments. Senators hadn't gotten past the first during the filibuster that started Wednesday afternoon.
I think it's safe to say that in the precinct where I worked in our recent primaries that at least 2/3 of the voters used a DL rather than a voter registration card. Would save a lot of paper and mailing fees to just get rid of those cards.....GO GREEN! USE YOUR ALREADY PAID FOR, HARD TO DUPLICATE DRIVERS LICENSE! CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!
-
I'm jumbling my comments I reckon. Perhaps I should have placed that comment after the "devil's advocate"? I am against National ID's, especially when pushed by the Feds. The louder they scream for it the more I cringe. The argument for ID's is better security but we all agree (here at least, so far) that it's a scam of sorts. Right?
Yup. It's just another tool for the gummint to encroach upon our lives. We've already got access to a Passport (note to self: it expires next May), a driver license (state level); state ID (for those who don't drive); CCW permit (for those who believe in the 2nd Amendment), not to mention all the IDs we have to show to get a job anymore. Mrs. E had to show a physical SS card recently in getting her job - just quoting her number wasn't enough.
Thanks, illegals, for mucking up my life. :censored:
-
I've been with same employer for over 10 years and just recently had to produce my SS card AGAIN and allow them to copy my marriage license for proof of eligibility to cover hubs on my insurance, the same ins we've been with for those 10 years. Thanks Obamacare,
:jacked2: sorry.
-
I knew it was a southern state. Haven't heard, did they find it "unconstitutional" as usual?
Last I heard, and our friends in GA can answer this better, but I believe it's still held up, so they can't ask for ID as yet.
-
Didn't the SCOTUS uphold an Indiana law for voter ID years ago? What's changed that would be more than a rubberstamp upholding of a similar law in another state?
-
WI just passed an ID requirement.
We'll have to see if it ends up challenged. I, for the life of me, can't figure out why it would be deemed a COTUS violation.