Judge's excerpts from the sanctions-case ruling
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 23, 2007 12:00 AM

U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake did more than issue a ruling Friday in Arizona's employer-sanctions case. He also reflected on a number of crucial issues surrounding illegal immigration in Arizona and the law designed to penalize businesses that knowingly hire workers in the country illegally.

Wake denied a request by a consortium of business groups for a temporary restraining order, clearing the way for the law to go into effect Jan. 1.

In his 29 page ruling, the judge made it clear he believes the public interest would be harmed by an order blocking the law from going into effect. He also expressed skepticism that businesses in Arizona would be seriously harmed by a decision to let the measure become law. He questioned whethe employers would be harmed by signing up for E-Verify, the federal employment verification program designed to check eligibility of new hires.

Under the new employer-sanctions law, all employers must begin using E-Verify by Jan. 1 to check eligibility or risk having their business licenses suspended or revoked.

Some notable excerpts:


•

'Plaintiffs' hardship is minimal'

"Plantiffs over mostly sweeping generalities for the hardship they must show to warrant and injunction pending an appeal or a temporary restraining order. . . . The hardship comes down to nothing more concrete than the expense of using E-Verify. Counsel admitted at trial that no planitff lacks a computer or Internet access. The only cost is employee time in learning the program, submitting the names of new hires after Jan. 1, 2008, and assisting new employees who wish to communicate with the federal government to resolve out-of-date government records. That would be a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a year for the majority of employers."


•

Whether an injunction would gravely injure the public interest

"(The business groups') motions wholly fail to acknowledge the harm to the interests of the state, the interests of others, and the public interest from an injunction pending appeal or temporary restraining order. Those ignored harms can be listed in somewhat ascending order as follows:

1. The state's expenditure to inform every employer by Oct. 1, 2007, of the act and of the obligation to comply with E-Verify after December 31, 2007, would be wasted.

2. Confusion would arise among employers with the prospect of serious prejudice to some. Of approximately 150,000 employers in Arizona, the large majority apparently have not yet enrolled in E-Verify. An injunction easily would cause many to think they are excused from the act and from E-Verify compliance, perhaps permanently, even though this is not a class action and an injunction would protect only the plaintiffs. . . . The risk of catastrophic loss to other employers from a confusion-causing injunction outweighs the minimal cost to plaintiffs from compliance.

3. People disagree whether the great number and continuing flow of unauthorized workers into the United States has more benefits than costs. But no one can disagree that the costs and benefits accrue differently to different people in our society. It is the responsibility of our elected representatives in Congress and in our legislatures to strike the balance among those competing social and economic interests. It is the responsibility of the courts to implement the balance as it has been struck, until it is struck differently.

The balance now struck is in favor of an economy for those who may work in the United States.

4. Those who suffer the most from unauthorized alien labor are those whom federal and Arizona law most explicitly protect. They are the competing lawful workers, many unskilled, low-wage, sometimes near or under the margin of poverty, who strain in individual competition and in a wage economy depressed by the great and expanding number of people who will work for less. . . . If the act is suspended, whether for a month or for years, the human cost for the least among us, measured by each person's continued deprivation, multiplied by their number, will be a great quantum. Even if the injunction is lifted later, their loss will never be paid back. Against all this, plaintiffs suffer only the expense of having their computer staff log some more hours, with off-setting business benefits as well, and helping authorized workers clear up their records."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... s1223.html