Thread: Forbes: Immigration Shootout At The Local Corral

Immigration Shootout At The Local Corral
Janet Novack, 07.19.07, 6:00 AM ET

Washington, D.C. -
Employers, beware. With comprehensive federal-immigration reform comatose, state and local politicians are rushing to do something about illegal immigration. And increasingly, employers, as well as illegal immigrants themselves, are being targeted by these frustration fueled efforts.

Earlier this month, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the toughest employer sanctions in the nation: Beginning Jan. 1, all 130,000-plus Arizona employers will be required to use a now voluntary Web-based federal service--commonly known as the "basic pilot program"--to check the legal work status of new hires. Any business that "knowingly" or "intentionally" hires illegal immigrants would, after a second offense, lose its license to operate in Arizona. In effect, it would face a corporate death sentence.

Already, two employer groups, the Arizona Contractors Association and the Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, have filed suit in federal court to block the new law, asserting, among other things, that it denies employers due process and is pre-empted by federal laws.

Kris W. Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law professor, who worked on immigration policy for former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and who helped draft the Arizona statute, insists that it's narrowly targeted to take advantage of an enforcement mechanism Congress left the locals in 1986. At that time, Congress made employing illegal aliens a federal offense and explicitly pre-empted state and local criminal charges and civil fines.

Still, Angelo I. Amador, director of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, isn't convinced. He says the Chamber might challenge the Arizona statue, as well as new laws affecting employers in Georgia and Colorado.

"We need to challenge them now. We want to stop them from spreading," Amador says. The Chamber has already filed a friend of the court brief supporting a federal court challenge (originally filed by immigrants rights groups) to a crackdown adopted by the city of Hazleton, Pa. That law, which includes licensing sanctions for employers and residency restrictions, has been blocked while a federal judge considers its legality.

"There wouldn't be a shortage of places for us to do our second filing," observes Amador, who ticks off localities, including two nearby Virginia counties, that have acted on immigration concerns in just the past few weeks.

An April survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that a record 1,169 immigration bills--double the number from the year before--had been introduced this year in state legislatures and that the largest number (199) dealt with employment.

Indeed, the one thing all parties seem to agree on is that until Washington acts, local and state politicians will feel compelled to do so. When she signed the new Arizona law, Democrat Napolitano said that it had flaws--including the lack of an exception to license revocation for essential businesses such as hospitals and power plants--and that she considered immigration a "federal responsibility." But, she added, "because of Congress' failure to act, states like Arizona have no choice but to take strong action."

At the same time, Napolitano fired off a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warning they'd better be sure that the federal pilot program can handle the coming volume from Arizona and other states likely to follow its lead. At present, fewer than 19,000 employers nationwide have signed on to use the federal basic pilot program, which instantly checks an employee's name and Social Security number to see if he's a citizen, or his work authorization if he's not.

Both the Chamber's Amador and Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, which is litigating against Hazleton, described the basic pilot program as "not ready for prime time."

Gerri Ratliff, chief of the verification division of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Homeland Security unit that runs the program, takes strong objection to that. "We are absolutely ready," she says. The system could currently handle four times as many employer queries as the 3 million to 4 million it's receiving (on an annual basis) right now, she says. After that, she adds, "it's just a matter of adding servers and hardware. It's an Oracle database. It's meant to be scalable.''

(Ratliff acknowledges, however, that the program doesn't catch identity theft--an illegal worker using a valid Social Security number of a citizen of a similar age.)

But both employers and immigrants advocates have a more persuasive objection to every town, county and state adopting its own scheme to control the employment of illegal aliens: They could be forced to deal with a confusing and expensive patchwork of laws without adequate protections. That includes protections for workers against discrimination based on national origin and erroneous database results--and for employers, against being sued for discrimination if they faithfully follow all the employment rules.

http://www.forbes.com/businessinthebelt ... ltway.html

That includes protections for workers against discrimination based on national origin

...Huh??? Illegal is illegal. Since when is targeting illegals a "discrimination based on national origin" issue????????
http://www.the3stooges.net/members/1234 ... becile.wav

That includes protections for workers against discrimination based on national origin

zeezil: Just an FYI... this could also apply to US citizens who are targeted by US / multinational companies for job elimination or non-hire (eg. as in all the high-profile cases of H1b / GC ONLY job solicitations - these openly discriminate against US citizens solely on grounds of country of origin).

I am so afraid this is just smoke and mirrors, but is a start.

A representative for the Chamber of Commerce in AZ was one of the people who argued against a law a group in AZ was trying to get passed to deal with immigration.

At the time I wondred at the audacity of an organization such as that openly defended the wholesale breaking of laws.

Added to Home Page
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=2402

Both the Chamber's Amador and Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, which is litigating against Hazleton, described the basic pilot program as "not ready for prime time."

They have had 20 Years to Be ready.

Angelo I. Amador (The name says it all), director of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce .... both of these 2... Angelo I. Amador (hahaha) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are corrupt. You would think when the term U.S. it would be attached to something that promotes America.. but no... it panders to businesses that do not have America's best interest in mind... How about a law suit to remove the U.S. from the chamber of commerce. It loves cheap labor and will break the back of America if it has to, to accomplish what it wants ... maybe the chamber needs to change its name to the South of the border businessioso ... get outta here ... hahahaha, wacko freaks

Doesn't make any sense that illegal aliens could have protected rights, super rights in fact, that are over the best interests of US citizens, does it? It makes perfect sense if you realize that these rights are not granted to illegals by our Constitution, but by the UN Human Rights Commission and under the expansion of NAFTA. It is all centered around the formation of the North American Union. That is the point, which is the following: Americans are expendable and unimportant, only the success of this plan is important!! SPP certainly has not provided any security nor prosperity for Americans as evidenced by our declining middle class and enormous increase in crime and drugs.

One third of Americans would like to emigrate now. If the election goes badly in 2008, people need to seriously consider getting out of here before it's too late.