Thread: GA: Judge sees problems with ban on hiring illegals

Judge sees problems with Gwinnett’s ban on hiring illegals
Judge does not stop enforcement of ban being challenged by contractors
BEN SMITH
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A federal judge said Tuesday that he sees legal problems with a Gwinnett County ordinance that targets companies that hire illegal immigrants.

Judge Clarence Cooper of U.S. District Court in Atlanta turned down a request to temporarily halt enforcement of the ordinance, but he made clear that he perceives legal problems with it.

The ordinance authorizes Gwinnett County to fine companies with county contracts if those companies hire illegal immigrants. A group of contractors sued the county a few days ago, arguing that Gwinnett overstepped its bounds with plans to fine companies for employing illegal immigrants.

During a court hearing Tuesday, the judge said he agreed with the contractors. He said it is the exclusive role of the federal government to impose fines or any other sanctions on companies that hire illegal immigrants.

“The court notes for the record that the ordinance is pre-empted by federal law in that it authorizes sanctions of employers,â€

Why is everyone sue-happy?

We had two federal circuit judges in two different states toss out similar lawsuits. We had one federal circuit judge (Munley -- LOSER) in PA who upheld the "unconstitutionality" of Hazleton enforcing laws imposing penalties on employers and landlords, in the appeal process now.

that's 2:1 odds against this judge.

Apparently he doesn't see the problems with his future employment as a judge.

Can someone please explain to me how a ban on hiring illegals is unconstitutional when it's already against federal law to hire illegals?

Also don't counties have a right to decide who it wants working for them? It's not a federal matter. So if a county says we will not hire anyone who employs illegal aliens, how is this unconstitutional?

Has the ACLU run out of money yet?

What they are saying is that it is against the law for state and local police to enforce laws that are federal. This really is an easy fix, if we had a congress worth a pot to piss in... all they have to do is give state and local law officers the right to enforce federal immigration laws. Period But they do not want to enforce the laws.

They could also arrest these employes for aiding, abetting and harboring illegals, do that to a few and see how fast they stop hireing illegals.

They could also shut up the people who accuse police officers of racial profileing, just ask everyone they stop or arrest, are you a citizen of the United States, they can ask me, I don't give a damn, do you! How about....May I see your drivers license and are you a citizen of the U.S., can it be any simpler.

There are plenty of laws out there, it is all about congress giving the authority to all member of law enforcement at every level the right to enforce.

COWARDS!!

The ordinance authorizes Gwinnett County to fine companies with county contracts if those companies hire illegal immigrants. A group of contractors sued the county a few days ago, arguing that Gwinnett overstepped its bounds with plans to fine companies for employing illegal immigrants.

If you don't want to agree to be held to those terms of employment then don't go for that nice county contract. Pretty simple, IMO. No one says that you HAVE to bid on those contracts, especially if you don't like the terms. Just leave them for law abiding citizens to bid on and let everyone see that you would rather underpay, support ID theft, evade taxes, and break any other law you don't care for.

Maybe all the countractors should be sued for any of the illegal activities of their employees.

If they won't allow the state, county or city to enforce the law, then they should be responsible for the people being in the area. If they harm anyone in an accident, an assault, etc., sue the employer. If they cause an accident or do anything that costs a citizen or the taxpayers any money, sue the employer for the costs.

We have to fight fire with fire and I am so encouraged to learn there is a law firm that is going to bat for Americans. They may be more than we know - the media is not going to tell us.

I wish Lou Dobbs or one of the others would do some research and find out about all the lawsuits going on involving illegal immigrants and let it be known. It might get others to get involved.

I am so tired of these greedy, treasonous contractors and OBL groups whining that it is the federal govt's job to impose fines, enforce the law etc., and then when the federal govt tries to do it, they get sued too.

The Amercan people don't care who enforces the law, JUST DO IT. We do NOT accept illegal immigration and illegal workers!

You can't find anything in the Constitution that gives the feds exclusive rights to immigration. Up until 1900, it was the States that governed who came into their territority. The feds only had authority when it came to citizenship. When the govt. sued New York over their imposing a tax on immigrants coming off the boat, they did it under the Commerce Clause, not under some authority they had exclusive rights on immigration. They knew they didn't. It's unthinkable that the early feds would ever dictate to the States they couldn't decide who immigrated into their territory.

After the current Constitution was adopted, it was the State governors or other local authorities who issued passports for foreign travel abroad and not the Federal Government because no such power was delegated to the national government. In 1856, changes were made for the issuance of passports by Congress not on Constitutional jurisdictional grounds, but because diplomatic agents of foreign governments in the United States required passports granted by the States to be authenticated by the ministers or consuls of the United States.

The above simply illustrates that no one was under any illusion that the US Constitution somehow magically made the issuance of passports for foreign travel of US citizens solely the purview of the Federal Government. Certainly then, if the power was retained with the States to issue passports for foreign travel they also retained complete control over foreign entry within their jurisdiction.

http://federalistblog.us/2006/07/delega ... on.html?go

Bilbray talked about this on Fox News today about the lawsuit that the judges here in CA sided with the US Chamber of Commerce, the OBL organizations etc, to stop DHS from doing the SS# checks. He said, if you go down the list of people suing you'll see its groups that are in it for power or money or both. It's the labor unions trying to add to their roles and screw their members they have now and the OBL wanting NO enforcement of laws at all yet want to use our laws to stop us from enforcing LAWS. So it will go to the 9th circuit and maybe the Supreme Court. They are counting on delaying it until the hope a Democratic President is in office.

They are counting on delaying it until the hope a Democratic President is in office.

Could be that. It could be just so Republicans could get elected or reelected and then they can do what they like.

It could be until the NAU gets put into place.

It could be our government is busy printing up and passing out green cards so suddenly everyone here will be 'legal'.

I don't put this on the Democrats alone.