Employer-sanctions law faces federal test today

[jimpasz]

Employer-sanctions law faces federal test today
Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 14, 2007 12:00 AM

As Arizona's employer-sanctions law goes under the legal microscope today, it is attracting a national spotlight for its potential effects on jobs, workers and policies nationwide.

"If it passes federal muster here, it'll be coming to a state legislature near you," said Farrell Quinlan, who represents a coalition of business groups working to make sure the law gets stopped in court.

The hearing begins at 10:30 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Neil Wake in the downtown Phoenix federal courthouse. Late Tuesday, court officials scheduled the hearing for a larger courtroom to accommodate what is expected to be a big crowd. advertisement




A key issue in the case is whether Arizona is within its constitutional limits to use the state's business licenses as the way to punish any employer found to have knowingly hired illegal workers.

Arizona is in the vanguard of states trying to curb illegal immigration by shutting off the job magnet they believe entices millions to enter the country illegally. Georgia and Oklahoma have similar laws targeting employers.

Arizona's law is slated to take effect Jan. 1. It calls for up to a 10-day suspension of a business' state-issued licenses for the first violation of having "knowingly" hired an illegal worker. A second offense would require revocation of those licenses.

The case is being closely watched by groups such as the National Conference of State Legislatures, which has added a discussion of the sanctions law to the agenda of its fall meeting to be held later this month in Phoenix.

Today's proceedings should give panelists plenty to talk about.

"States are trying to test their boundaries because this is a gray area between federal and state law," said Ann Morse, a program director at the legislative group.

"The immigration issue has just skyrocketed. The number of bills introduced (in legislatures) this year has doubled, and that had doubled over the year before."

A report compiled by the legislatures group found that immigration legislation was introduced in each of the 50 states this year, for a total of 1,404 bills. Of them, 182 survived to become law, including Arizona's House Bill 2779.

Most business groups opposed to the law make the same argument that underpins their lawsuit against the state: The law is unconstitutional because it calls for the state to intrude into employment law, which is a federal responsibility.

State attorneys have argued in briefs filed in advance of today's hearing that federal law clearly gives states authority to regulate businesses through the licensing process.

The outcome, expected next month, is likely to touch off national repercussions.

If the law is upheld, it could set off a wave of similar bills in other states.

It could even get a divided Congress to act, said Hector Chichoni, an immigration and employment attorney who practices out of Miami, Fla., and objects to the Arizona law.

"I think Congress will hurry up and enact some law to stop pandemonium in other states," he said.

If the law is struck down, there would be "relief" among many employers and immigrant groups, he predicted.

But whatever the outcome, it's likely to be appealed by the losing party, leading to the prospect of a protracted legal battle and continued debate here and nationally over how to cut illegal immigration.

The bill's prime sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, tried for years to enact sanctions legislation. It passed easily this year amid growing public frustration with illegal immigration, although some lawmakers have since said they regret their votes in favor of it.

Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law on July 2, even as she expressed reservations about some of its provisions. Business groups sued 11 days later.

Wake, appointed to the federal bench by President Bush, has promised a ruling on the case before the law's Jan. 1 effective date.

The case may mark the first time the merits of a sanctions law has been taken before a federal court, said Mark Kirkorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Policy, which backs a strong enforcement-first approach to the nation's immigration problems.

And a verdict in the case could break through the sound barrier that often blocks Washington, D.C., from paying attention to what's happening west of the Potomac, he said.

In his view, the legal debate over sanctions laws hasn't drawn much attention. For example, earlier this month a federal judge in Oklahoma rejected a request for an injunction against that state's immigration law, which includes employer sanctions. The action drew little notice in Washington, he said.

Oklahoma's law took effect on Nov. 1, although the challenge to the law's merits - brought by Latino groups and clergy - is continuing.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... 1114.html#

[wilma1]

Its amazing that the pro-illegal people want to play by the laws when it works in their favor. The only gray area I see is the one that has been created by employers and other pro-illegals. Therefore states like Arizona should play the same game. Make up you own laws,enforce the laws within your state and tell the chamber of commerce to take a hike. Can't have it both ways. Just because the feds have dropped the ball doesn't mean American citizens have to continue to pay the price for this mess. The employers should pay for the illegals insurance,pay for their education,pay for their incarcerations and then maybe they'll shut-up!

[MyAmerica]

Let's hope U.S. District Judge Neil Wake is familar with:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

"
Good fences make good neighbors."

[Rockfish]

"If it passes federal muster here, it'll be coming to a state legislature near you," said Farrell Quinlan, who represents a coalition of business groups working to make sure the law gets stopped in court.

Let me restate this:

"If it passes federal muster here, it'll be coming to a state legislature near you," said Farrell Quinlan, who represents a coalition of business groups paying and bribing to make sure the law gets stopped in court.

[SOSADFORUS]

"If it passes federal muster here, it'll be coming to a state legislature near you," said Farrell Quinlan, who represents a coalition of business groups working to make sure the law gets stopped in court.

Let me restate this:

"If it passes federal muster here, it'll be coming to a state legislature near you," said Farrell Quinlan, who represents a coalition of business groups paying and bribing to make sure the law gets stopped in court.

"Rockfish" you probably hit the nail directly on the head!!

[Jean]

Pearce Discusses Employer Sanctions Bill Court Case
November 19th, 2007 @ 7:21am
by Mike Sauceda/KTAR

A federal judge last week heard arguments about a law punishing employers for knowingly hiring illegal aliens, but there was some confusion in the courtroom.

The law, slated to go into effect January 1, punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants by taking away their business licenses.

Part of the confusion in the courtroom was whether the new law would apply to illegal aliens already employed.

State Representative Russell Pearce, the author of the law, says federal law allows employers to be punished for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

"But if you're talking specifically about House Bill 2779 - about going after the license of a business -- that only applies to those hired after January 1st," Pearce said on KTAR's The Jay Lawrence Show.

He also said the federal judge hearing the case questioned the plaintiffs' justification for bringing the case to court. "He said, 'First of all, you guys are all here complaining that this is really gonna hurt ya'. But none of ya admits you're hiring illegal aliens. So how could it hurt ya'?"


http://news.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=650361