USA TODAY EDITORIAL

Our view on immigration: Let Arizona use E-Verify to curb hiring of illegal workers

The federal government's inability to stop illegal immigration has persisted for so long that frustrated states (and cities and towns) long ago got fed up and began trying to address the problem themselves. Since 2005, state legislatures have enacted more than 1,200 immigration-related laws and resolutions, many of them in conflict with federal laws.

OPPOSING VIEW:Bad for business and workers

The inevitable question — who's in charge? — has drawn courts into the discussion. On Wednesday, the conflict made it to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on a case from Arizona, the aggressive leader among states trying to deal with the influx.

The issue this time isn't Arizona's bitterly controversial law that requires local police, in the course of a lawful stop, to question the legal status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being in this country illegally. That draconian law is wending its way to the high court, along with tough restrictions on employers and landlords in Hazleton, Pa.

The fate of both could be influenced by what the court decides in the case heard Wednesday, which involves a 2007 Arizona law that bars employers from hiring illegal immigrants. The law, signed by Democratic governor Janet Napolitano (now the Homeland Security secretary), mandates that employers confirm job applicants' legality through E-Verify, a federal online service that checks workers against the Social Security database. Companies that don't comply can be stripped of their business licenses.

Federal law makes using E-Verify voluntary for most employers, and the legal issue is whether a state should be able to make it mandatory. Two lower courts upheld the Arizona law, and though it's always risky to predict what the Supreme Court will do, both the Associated Press and the influential Supreme Court website SCOTUSblog.com said after Wednesday's arguments that the high court will likely follow suit. Justice Antonin Scalia signaled this by observing that Arizona "had to take this very massive step (because) the federal government has simply not enforced the immigration restrictions."

Backing Arizona would be the right decision. States are generally allowed to be stricter than Washington — whether the issue is air pollution or food safety or securities trading — as long as they stay within constitutional boundaries. Arizona makes a compelling argument that the state has been overwhelmed by undocumented workers from Mexico, and the reason most illegal immigrants come to the U.S. is to work.

There are downsides. The law's penalties — loss of your business for a second intentional hiring of illegal immigrants — are so onerous that employers might shy away from hiring anyone who looks Hispanic. Further, businesses could confront a confusing patchwork of state and local laws, or lose the illegal immigrant labor they count on.

Those are all fixable problems. E-Verify, which has gotten steadily more accurate, should become mandatory not just in Arizona but nationally. More important, Congress should pass a comprehensive immigration law that combines tough border enforcement with a temporary-worker program.

For the most part, immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility that requires a national solution. But until that day arrives, and there's no sign of it happening anytime soon, states deserve some leeway to take reasonable steps to protect themselves.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... 9_ST_N.htm