Thread: Supreme Court seeks White House views on hiring illegals

Thought there was separation between the three branches of government????

The Supreme Court is to interpret the laws, we have laws, they just aren't enforced so some of the states are trying to do the job the federal government fails miserably at.

This doesn't feel right.

we need to follow this closely and see what the outcome is.
too bad the american people can not have a chance to stand before
the supreme court and give their two cents on stuff like this

Basically what I see is when a local government ALLOWS THEIR CITY TO BE A SANCTUARY CITY they are given a pass. Allowing sanctuary status is in conflict with federal law.

BUT.....IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT WANTS TO ENACT ANTI-ILLEGAL LAWS THEY ARE BLOCKED BASED ON....IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH FERDERAL LAW.

Why is it that cities are allowed to be in conflict with federal law ONLY WHEN THEY ARE ALLOWING ILLEGALS, BUT NOT WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO KEEP THEM OUT?

How can the Feds even say this with a straight face...on the one hand allowing it and on the other hand disallowing it, both based on the same exact premise?

Justices may hear disputed Arizona law
High court seeks Obama input on migrant hiring

by Daniel González and Dan Nowicki - Nov. 3, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated it is interested in hearing an appeal from business groups that, for the past two years, have been trying to have Arizona's controversial employer-sanctions law thrown out.

The sanctions law, which punishes companies for hiring illegal immigrants and requires all Arizona employers to use a federal electronic system to verify the work status of employees, has been upheld by two lower courts.

But a coalition of business groups, immigrant-rights advocates and civil-liberties groups maintains that the 2007 law is unconstitutional because it infringes on the federal government's authority over immigration laws and mandates the use of the federal government's electronic-verification system, known as E-Verify, even though it is a voluntary program.


The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Obama administration to weigh in on the issue before deciding whether to take on the case.

The Obama administration is not a party in the case, but the case intersects with several federal issues, notably E-Verify and federal immigration policy.

Opponents of the law were encouraged by the Supreme Court's request. They say it shows that the court recognizes how the sanctions law, which has been imitated in several other states, has implications beyond Arizona. Several states have modeled legislation on Arizona's law, as state and local governments grapple with the complicated issue of immigration in the wake of Congress' failure to solve the problem.

"At the end of the day, we still feel that immigration lies at the federal level," said Glenn Hamer, president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. "We have this crazy quilt of state and local laws, and we believe this is better left to the federal government, and we certainly see this as an encouraging sign that the Supreme Court will consider the case and make it clear that immigration is a federal matter."

Julie Pace, a Phoenix lawyer who represents the coalition of 10 Arizona business groups including the Arizona Chamber, the Arizona Contractors Association and the Arizona Landscapers Association, said the sanctions law affects companies nationwide that do business in Arizona. The coalition includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"Companies are clearly overburdened with government regulation, and we need uniform and consistent immigration laws, and that is why this case is of national importance," she said.

The Obama administration has postponed dealing with immigration reform until at least 2010 while it addresses its top domestic-policy issue: health-care reform.

A brief submitted by Arizona Solicitor General Mary O'Grady argues against the Supreme Court taking the case, saying not "every dispute about a state or local measure regarding illegal immigrants merits this court's review."

Through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Congress gave states permission to impose sanctions through "licensing and similar laws," O'Grady's brief says.

"Arizona's sanctions statute does not impose any new obligations on employers because IRCA's federal-law provisions already prohibit employers from knowingly employing unauthorized aliens," O'Grady wrote. "Arizona's law merely establishes state sanctions for that illegal conduct, as Congress specifically permits states to do. . . . In addition, Arizona's E-Verify provision simply requires Arizona employers to participate in a congressionally authorized federal program that is already available nationwide."

The sanctions law allows the state's attorney general and county attorneys to file civil complaints against employers suspected of hiring illegal workers. Employers found to have "knowingly or intentionally" hired illegal workers face having their business licenses suspended or revoked. In the nearly two years since the law took effect in January 2008, not a single complaint has been filed against an employer anywhere in the state. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, however, has raided about two dozen businesses under the law, resulting in the arrests of scores of suspected illegal workers on identity-theft and fraud charges but no complaints against employers.

"(The law) reflects rising frustration with the United States Congress' failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform," the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling that upheld the law.

In a closed-door conference Friday, the outcome of which was released Monday, the justices agreed to ask Obama's solicitor general, Elena Kagan, to submit a brief outlining the administration's views. The justices will review the brief before deciding to take the case.

For the Obama administration, the legal challenge poses potentially thorny questions.

During last year's presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama declared that the proliferation of state immigration laws "underscores the need for comprehensive immigration reform so local communities do not continue to take matters into their own hands."

The Arizona governor who signed the state law was Janet Napolitano, who now serves in the Obama administration as the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

www.azcentral.com

And there goes separation of powers out the door too!

W

As long as the Obama Administration and the Supremes are going to be face to face, chewing the fat, maybe they can get some Supreme input on the Constitutionality and correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Fixing the 14th is a bigger issue than trying to figure out ways for illegal workers to keep their jobs, with 15 million Americans out of work.

************************************************** *****

Directions for cleaning Congress:

1. Lather
2. Rinse
3. Replace
4. Repeat

Wow, they change the rules to fit the agenda , We should do this then to MMMmmm.. dont you think?

The White House doesnt set immigration laws! What is wrong with the courts? Our Constitution is being dragged through the mud.

Quote:
"But a coalition of business groups, immigrant-rights advocates and civil-liberties groups maintains that the 2007 law is unconstitutional because it infringes on the federal government's authority over immigration laws and mandates the use of the federal government's electronic-verification system, known as E-Verify, even though it is a voluntary program."


Using E-Verify is the slimmest of threads upon which to hang bringing in an opinion from the White House. It has been the White House, under both Bush and Obama, which have at the bequest of the U.S.Chamber of Commerce put off either implementing E-Verify or extending E-Verify, a program implemented by law by the U.S. Congress. In fact, through this constant "road-blocking", the federal E-Verify remains voluntary, applies only to "new hires", is used by a minority of companies, and recently was extended again for only 3 years.

U.S. Supreme Court express interest in Arizona immigration law
Comments 1
November 03, 2009 7:48 PM
BY HOWARD FISCHER

PHOENIX - The ability of Arizona to go after companies that hire undocumented workers could depend on the views of the Obama administration.

In an unusual move, the U.S. Supreme Court has asked a top official at the Department of Justice to weigh in on claims by businesses and others that Congress never intended for state and local governments to enact their own programs designed to weed out and punish errant employers. The order, issued Monday, invites the solicitor general to file briefs "expressing the views of the United States."

David Selden, an attorney who has been at the forefront of challenging the Arizona law, said he sees the move, at the very least, as a sign the justices want to review a federal appellate court ruling upholding the law that took effect early last year.

Potentially more significant Selden said those comments from the solicitor general could work in favor of the businesses he represents who contend that Congress always intended to have only the federal government enforce immigration law.

That presumes, however, that the administration sees things the way Selden wants.

"It does put the Obama administration in the position of having to take a stand as to what the view of the administration are with respect to illegal immigration,'' he said.

The issue has created an usual alliance of businesses, now being led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and various Hispanic and civil rights organizations, some of whom are seen as friendly to the administration and some which are not.

Both object to the law which requires companies to determine the legal status of new workers through the federal government's E-Verify online database. The law also allows a state judge to suspend - and potentially revoke - the ability of any company found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers to do business in Arizona.

And the request for administration input comes as Obama has promised to make the issue of illegal immigration one of its top priorities for the coming year.

"I would hope that this is going to be a legal issue, not a political issue,'' Selden said. "But there's some mixture of both.''

And the question of whether Arizona lawmakers acted illegally could be colored by another factor: It was Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who, as governor, signed Arizona's employer sanctions statute into law.

Central to the question facing the high court is exactly what Congress meant in approving the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. That law specifically precludes states and cities from imposing any civil or criminal penalties on companies for their hiring practices.

But Congress did provide an exemption for "licensing and similar laws.''

Based on that, both a federal trial judge in Phoenix and, last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congress specifically allowed states to enact exactly the kind of laws that Arizona has passed - and to impose the kind of penalties the state law allows.

The judges also rejected the contention that state lawmakers acted illegally in requiring employers to use the E-Verify system and to fire those found not to be in this country legally. And they concluded there are sufficient legal protections in the law for companies charged with hiring undocumented workers to allow them to argue to a judge that they did not, in fact, violate the law.

Selden said he believes a case can be made to the U.S. Supreme Court that Congress never intended for there to be a "patchwork of state and local laws'' dealing with undocumented workers.

Still, challengers to the law face the hurdle that Congress did, in fact, include that exemption for licenses.

It is that exemption that Arizona lawmakers used to draft the law permitting judges to put firms out of business. Selden said, however, he believes the high court can be convinced that legislators here are reading too much into that exemption.

"It makes no sense for Congress to have written a law ... to mean that you can take away a person's business license but you cannot fine them $100,'' he said. In essence, Selden said, that creates a law "where the only penalty is business capital punishment on an issue where Congress clearly intended to balance the immigration enforcement very carefully against the anti-discrimination provisions'' of the law.

He said businesses read the license exemption to permit the state to deny or revoke operating authority of any firm which has previously been found guilty in a federal proceeding of violating immigration law. Selden said there was never any intent to let local prosecutors investigate possible violations or for state judges to determine guilt or innocence.


http://www.yumasun.com/news/law-53947-c ... izona.html