Thread: Judges skeptical any harm was done by law

Employer sanctions law goes before appeals court
by Mary Jo Pitzl - Jun. 12, 2008 03:07 PM
The Arizona Republic
SAN FRANCISCO - A panel of federal appeals judges looked skeptically Thursday on arguments that Arizona has no authority to impose its own requirements on employers as a way to guard against illegal workers.

But an attorney for the groups that are challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's Legal Arizona Workers Act said that if Arizona gets away with establishing its own requirements and penalties on illegal workers, it will create a chaotic and burdensome atmosphere nationwide for both employers and workers.

"The central issue is whether every state and locality can enact its own laws (on hiring), thereby balkanizing our immigration laws and dramatically increasing the burden on employers," attorney Jonathan Weissglass told a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


Weissglass argued on behalf of a coalition of Arizona business groups, civil-rights groups and national business organizations.

Those groups believe Arizona's employer sanctions law is unconstitutional because it asserts state control in an area that they contend is the federal government's alone.

Arizona's law, enacted a year ago and in force since January,spells out penalties for employers who have been found to have hired illegal workers. A first violation could trigger a suspension of state-issued business licenses; a second violation would result in permanent loss of those licenses.

To date, there have been no prosecutions under the law, although Maricopa County officials say they are exploring whether a handful of cases meet the law's standards. That includes Tuesday's raid of the offices of Golfland Entertainment Centers, which operates three fun parks in the Valley. Sheriff's deputies were working on a tip that the parks had illegal workers on staff.

Thursday's arguments in a San Francisco courtroom mark the first time an employer-sanctions law has been argued at the federal appeals-court level. Two other cases are expected to follow suit later this summer in other parts of the country.

All of the cases revolve around the issue of whether any government other than Congress can establish employment standards and hand out punishment if found to have hired illegal workers.

Judge John M. Walker said he found nothing in federal law that prohibits a state from mandating that employers use E-Verify, an online database that validates the Social Security number and immigration status of new hires.

Walker noted that Congress made the program voluntary.

"Right now, should every employer in the country want to do it, they could do it," he said. So, what's the harm? he asked.

The harm, Weissglass countered, is Arizona's law removes an employer's ability to choose to use the program. And by doing so, the law violates the federal government's exclusive domain over immigration law, he said.

Judge N. Randy Smith said he could find nothing in the federal law that prevents state and local governments from making such a mandate. If Congress intended states to stay out of mandating E-Verify, or of imposing sanctions through business licenses, it would have expressly said so, Smith said.

Judge Mary Schroeder, an Arizonan and former chief judge of the appeals court, questioned whether there was inconsistency between the federal law's voluntary use of E-Verify and Arizona's requirement that employers must use it to screen new hires. Using the system gives Arizona employers a strong argument against prosecution if they are found to have hired illegal workers.

Mary O'Grady, Arizona's Solicitor General, argued that Congress wanted to create an effective verification law, not necessarily a voluntary one. But by making it voluntary, the federal government was able to test out the program and proceed cautiously.

And, O'Grady added, Arizona hasn't created its own screening program; it's using the verification system that Congress devised.

Dave Jones, executive director of the Arizona Contractors Association, attended the hearing and was dismayed by the line of questioning.

"I didn't hear anything real encouraging on our behalf," he said. The contractors association filed the original challenge to the law 11 days after Gov. Janet Napolitano signed it into law last summer.

Jones said he suspects the arguments will continue to a higher level if the contractors and their business and civil-rights allies lose this appeal.

"We'll probably take it to the wall," he said.

The law was upheld in a February ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Neil V. Wake in Phoenix, setting the stage for Thursday's appeal.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 12-ON.html

Seems a duplicate post:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-119186.html

This isn't a duplicate article. This one is written by Mary Jo Pitzl from the AZ Republic and the other is written by Howard Fischer, Capital News Service. They just happen to be on the same subject.

I thought we were to post it as another example on the other thread?

yeah JUDGES can say that , they dont have there social security card number stolden or there IDS. As long as it dont happen to them they could care less.
Just like Bush wanted to pardon jose madellin, for murder and raping two young girls. He will be executed on Aug 5, 2008 I believe that is the day.
According to bush his "RIGHTS" where violated, and the mexican consulate was not notified, gee I wonder if they have to notify the mexican consulate to commite 1 st degree murder and rape. Bush needs to be impeached big time, he has committed TREASON, he has lied, and manipulated his power.

www.reportanddeport.wordpress.com

www.kucinich.house.gov/NEWS/DocumentSin ... ntID=93581

www.petitionOnline.com/STOP0608


KOOBSTER