Thread: good news....Fed Judge upholds AZ anti-invader laws!

Wow that's great for our side....first Valley Park, Missouri's laws are upheld by federal judge and now AZ's state laws are upheld as well.. the tide has turned. LA rAZA must be fuming.

Az illegal-immigrant hiring law upheld

By PAUL DAVENPORT and JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Writers 42 minutes ago

PHOENIX - A federal judge on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that prohibits businesses from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and yanks the business licenses of those that do.
ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. District Judge Neil Wake dismissed a lawsuit filed by business groups that argued that federal immigration law severely restricts Arizona's ability to punish people who knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

The law won approval last year from the Republican-majority Legislature and Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano amid frustration over what they said were inadequate federal efforts to confront illegal immigration. Many cities across the country have passed similar measures, though some have been rejected in court.

Business groups including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry argue the Arizona law unconstitutionally infringes on federal immigration powers. Wake, however, concluded that there is no conflict with federal immigration law, which he said specifically lets states regulate business licensing.

"Preservation of that state power was itself part of Congress' careful balancing of policy objectives," Wake wrote.

Wake also ruled that the law gives sufficient due-process protections to businesses.

Farrell Quinlan, a spokesman for the business groups challenging the law, said at least some would appeal Wake's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; an appeal of an earlier ruling by the judge is already pending there.

Quinlan said the groups were reviewing the ruling and had no immediate comment.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, whose office is defending the law in court, called Wake's ruling a "thoughtful review."

Businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants could face a business license suspension lasting up to 10 days under the new law. Second-time violators would have their business licenses permanently revoked. The law also requires businesses to use an otherwise voluntary federal database to verify the employment eligibility of new workers.

The law is intended to weaken the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the border and lessen Arizona's role as the busiest illegal gateway into the country. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal immigrants account for one in 10 workers in the Arizona economy.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said the law is "a good-faith effort to deal with the immigration crisis by focusing on those relatively few employers who intentionally or knowingly hire illegal immigrants."

Opponents of the law argue it would burden employers and poison Arizona's business climate. Supporters say state punishments are needed because the federal government isn't doing enough to enforce its own law prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Arizona's 15 county prosecutors have agreed not to take any complaints filed under the employer sanctions law to court until March 1, giving the people involved in the case enough time to appeal Wake's ruling.

Wake's ruling did not settle whether the law applies to all workers, or only those hired after it took effect in January. The judge noted that the law's reach has been debated, with lawmakers disagreeing on what was intended, and said that issue would have to be settled in a future case.

Earlier rulings on similar measures have been mixed. In July, a federal judge struck down a Hazleton, Pa., ordinance that would deny business permits for companies that employ illegal immigrants, but another judge upheld a similar measure in Valley Park, Mo., last week.

___

On the Net:

Arizona Employers For Immigration Reform: http://azeir.org/index2.asp

Arizona Legislature: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/

Arizona attorney general's office: http://www.azag.gov/

Good News! Will the lawsuits never end from the deep pocket OBL's and Corrupt Businesses?

Good News! Will the lawsuits never end from the deep pocket OBL's and Corrupt Businesses?

OK the cork just came half way out of full bottle of Makers Whiskey I have been saving. :P :P :P :P

Good news indeed. Hope this spreads.

District judge upholds employer sanctions law
Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 8, 2008 12:00 AM

A federal judge upheld the merits of Arizona's landmark employer-sanctions law Thursday, saying it does not overstep the federal government's authority to regulate illegal immigration.

U.S. District Judge Neil Wake dismissed arguments by a coalition of business and Latino civil-rights groups that the law unconstitutionally gives the state controls over immigration. Wake noted that the state law controls business licenses and does not determine who should be admitted into the United States.

The Legal Arizona Workers Act gives the state authority to suspend or revoke the business license of any employer found to have knowingly or intentionally hired an illegal immigrant. The 15 county attorneys have the power to enforce the law but have said they have no intention of bringing any enforcement actions before March 1. advertisement


Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law after it won lopsided approval from the Legislature in June. The lawsuit was filed 11 days later.

Wake ruled that the law "does not make employers conform to a stricter standard of conduct than federal law."

"The licensing sanctions of (the law) carefully track the federal employer-sanctions law. The act does not make employers conform to a stricter standard of conduct than federal law," Wake ruled, adding, "Just like the federal law, the act contains procedures for weeding out frivolous complaints and provides enforcement officers with discretion."

Wake also found that the law provides employers with due process.

"No employer may be sanctioned without a full evidentiary hearing in the Superior Court of Arizona. . . . The state has the burden to prove that the employer knowingly or intentionally employed an unauthorized alien. The Superior Court has full evidence-taking, fact-finding and discretionary authority on all issues of liability; it simply cannot find an employee unauthorized absent a federal determination to that effect," Wake stated.

Lawmakers and attorneys defending the case applauded Wake's ruling, the third in as many months.

"I appreciate the thoughtful review of the facts and findings of law by Judge Wake in this important case," Attorney General Terry Goddard said in a statement.

"I'm proud of the excellent work done by the lawyers in my office in representing the state. My office will continue to vigorously defend this law should it be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."

Attorneys for the business groups in the case said they will quickly appeal the case, seeking to consolidate it with an appeal from an earlier lawsuit that has been before the 9th Circuit since December. The court put the earlier appeal on hold until Wake could issue his ruling.

Attorney Julie Pace noted that, given the prosecutors' commitment to not bring any enforcement action before March 1, there should be time for the appeals court to act on a request for an injunction in the coming weeks.

Many in the business community were resigned to losing, at least for now, given the tone of the two previous rulings in the controversial case.

"I'm not shocked. I would be surprised if I saw it (the law) go away," said Ken Rosevear, executive director of the Yuma County Chamber of Commerce. He also expects the case will be upheld on appeal.

"Fortunately, there haven't been any (enforcement) issues here," added Rosevear, who was a member of a committee headed by House Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, to consider problems and patches to the law.

Produce growers in Yuma saw a drop-off in workers after the law went into effect but have been able to hire enough people to work the lettuce crop, which is at its peak now, he said.

Still, Rosevear said, employers will eventually feel the law's sting.

"It's one of those deals where it's not a problem until it's a problem," he said.

Ellen GilBride, a private attorney handling the case on behalf of Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, said the case is far from over.

"The 9th Circuit is pretty independent. They're going to do what they want to do," she said.

House Speaker Weiers noted that Wake did not resolve one of the nagging questions that has dogged the case since its first day in court in November: whether it applies to all of a company's employees or only those who have been hired since Jan. 1, the effective date of the law.

Wake acknowledged the dispute over that section of the law but added that no county attorney has indicated any intent to prosecute an employer for having hired an illegal worker before Jan. 1.

"(T)he court need not decide whether the act permits enforcement for old hires, which would have to await an actual case with those facts," Wake wrote.

Weiers said lawmakers will move ahead with proposed changes to the law, although he did not specify which ones.

"We are undertaking the task of clarification," Weiers said. His advisory committee of business owners submitted a report two weeks ago, but its suggestions will not necessarily be written into the law, Weiers has said.

Like others opposed to the law, immigrant advocate Alfredo Gutierrez hopes the sanctions law will be thrown out by the appellate court.

He and other Latino activists contend the sanctions law will lead to discrimination against legal and U.S.-born Hispanic workers. But, so far, that has been difficult to prove because no cases have yet come forward.

"After the law goes into effect and they begin to enforce it, we will be able to show it is causing discrimination," he said.

In his ruling, Wake noted the plaintiffs' concerns that the sanctions law does not specifically outlaw discrimination.

But, he wrote, workers and employers are protected by existing anti-discrimination laws at both the state and federal levels.

"The state did not have to duplicate these laws by inserting an independent discrimination provision into the act," Wake wrote.

www.azcentral.com

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-2937--0-0.html