Thread: Finally! A immigration law that makes sense.

First Read - Supreme Court backs Ariz. business immigration law

So in 2007, Arizona passed a controversial law -- signed by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano -- that allows the state to take away the business licenses of employers that intentionally hire illegal workers. Led by the US Chamber of Commerce, several business and civil rights groups challenged the law, saying enforcement of the immigation laws is for the federal government.

Much better than the "Papers please" law. To stop illegal immigration we have to kill the incentive to do so and by discouraging business from hiring these people, they have no where to work and no reason to jump the border.

There are going to a lot of contractors in AZ that are going to lose their business which is good because it will open the door of opportunity for others looking to to start their own business that will hire Americans.

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.

Supreme Court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses - CNN.com

IMHO, this is the right ruling. It is manifestly unjust to prosecute illegal immigrants while giving those who hire them a free pass.

The Arizona law requires employers to use the federal E-Verify service to verify the work eligibility of employees, and provides sanctions for knowingly employing illegal immigrants including revocation of business licensure.

The Court held that "A recently enacted Arizona statute—the Legal Arizona Workers Act—provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. The law also requires that all Arizona employers use a federal electronic verification
system to confirm that the workers they employ are legally authorized workers. The question presented is whether federal immigration law preempts those provisions of Arizona law. Because we conclude that the State’s licensing provisions fall squarely within the federal statute’s savings clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted."

The vote in the Court was 8-3, with Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting. Justice Kagan recused herself, because she was involved with this case as a government solicitor in the lower courts.

I saw this on Facebook a few minutes ago and am very pleased with the ruling. Now if only more states would follow suit...

Originally Posted by MattInFla

IMHO, this is the right ruling. It is manifestly unjust to prosecute illegal immigrants while giving those who hire them a free pass.

The Arizona law requires employers to use the federal E-Verify service to verify the work eligibility of employees, and provides sanctions for knowingly employing illegal immigrants including revocation of business licensure.

The Court held that "A recently enacted Arizona statute—the Legal Arizona Workers Act—provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. The law also requires that all Arizona employers use a federal electronic verification
system to confirm that the workers they employ are legally authorized workers. The question presented is whether federal immigration law preempts those provisions of Arizona law. Because we conclude that the State’s licensing provisions fall squarely within the federal statute’s savings clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted."

The vote in the Court was 8-3, with Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting. Justice Kagan recused herself, because she was involved with this case as a government solicitor in the lower courts.

Whew! Who!

And of course you'll have Obama's justice department come out and state they will not enforce said law.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

First Read - Supreme Court backs Ariz. business immigration law



Much better than the "Papers please" law. To stop illegal immigration we have to kill the incentive to do so and by discouraging business from hiring these people, they have no where to work and no reason to jump the border.

There are going to a lot of contractors in AZ that are going to lose their business which is good because it will open the door of opportunity for others looking to to start their own business that will hire Americans.

They have plenty of incentive to cross the border without employment.

They'll get public housing, WIC, health care. Why bother to work?

It's a state law, so the Justice Department has no role in enforcement.

I suspect we'll see some other states follow suit, now that the pre-emption question has been definitively answered.

Matt

Originally Posted by 9aces

And of course you'll have Obama's justice department come out and state they will not enforce said law.

Which is cool... it is a state law and enforceable in and by the state.

Great ruling and a harbinger of the AZ immigration law.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

IMHO, this is the right ruling. It is manifestly unjust to prosecute illegal immigrants while giving those who hire them a free pass.

The Arizona law requires employers to use the federal E-Verify service to verify the work eligibility of employees, and provides sanctions for knowingly employing illegal immigrants including revocation of business licensure.

The Court held that "A recently enacted Arizona statute—the Legal Arizona Workers Act—provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. The law also requires that all Arizona employers use a federal electronic verification
system to confirm that the workers they employ are legally authorized workers. The question presented is whether federal immigration law preempts those provisions of Arizona law. Because we conclude that the State’s licensing provisions fall squarely within the federal statute’s savings clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted."

The vote in the Court was 8-3, with Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting. Justice Kagan recused herself, because she was involved with this case as a government solicitor in the lower courts.

It's great that this law got upheld. It's been 2 years in the process so it's also about damned time. I am, however, a bit confused as to how the court managed an 8-3 decision with one recusal.

Originally Posted by lutherf

It's great that this law got upheld. It's been 2 years in the process so it's also about damned time. I am, however, a bit confused as to how the court managed an 8-3 decision with one recusal.

Typo on my part. Make that 5-3.