Supreme Court will hear case about Arizona's 2007 Illegal Immigration law

[Cartesiantheater]

This is the law that prohibits businesses from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100628/...oyer_sanctions

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal from business and civil rights groups trying to overturn a 2007 Arizona law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

The state law was intended to lessen the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak into the U.S. by holding employers accountable for hiring them.
The prohibition is separate from a new Arizona immigration law that's also being challenged in court and requires police to question the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.

Supporters say the employer sanctions law was needed because the federal government hasn't adequately enforced a similar federal law.

Critics say the law is an unconstitutional attempt by the state to regulate immigration and that cracking down on illegal hires is the sole responsibility of the federal government.

Those of you who have debated with me on this issue know that THIS is the solution I support: holding businesses responsible for their illegal hires.

The challenge here appears to be that the Federal Government alone should be in charge of immigration law, and more importantly that different state laws would make things inconvenient for businesses that operate over state lines (boo hoo).

Obviously I can't say that I know what the result will be, but personally I think laws like this are the way to go.

[Freddy]

The fact that the 9th Circuit, the most liberal court, upheld this law is comforting.

[Ningishiddza]

The challenge here appears to be that the Federal Government alone should be in charge of immigration law, and more importantly that different state laws would make things inconvenient for businesses that operate over state lines (boo hoo).

Okay, so as you've framed it here, it sounds like the businesses are going to argue that the immigration law impedes Interstate Commerce, and Congress has the sole authority to regulate Interstate Commerce.

The States have different rules, regulations and taxes for many things, yet that doesn't seem to impede Interstate Commerce (that's why not all "health insurance" companies operate in all States because regulations impede).

I'm not sure the Federal government has sole authority over immigration. I don't recall seeing anything specific in the Constitution, so that would mean the Federal government and the State governments have joint authority.

I can see a problem if Congress enters into an FNC with another country and the FNC addresses immigration issues between the US and the other country, because that would supersede the States' authority.

[Cartesiantheater]

Okay, so as you've framed it here, it sounds like the businesses are going to argue that the immigration law impedes Interstate Commerce, and Congress has the sole authority to regulate Interstate Commerce.

The States have different rules, regulations and taxes for many things, yet that doesn't seem to impede Interstate Commerce (that's why not all "health insurance" companies operate in all States because regulations impede).

I'm not sure the Federal government has sole authority over immigration. I don't recall seeing anything specific in the Constitution, so that would mean the Federal government and the State governments have joint authority.

I can see a problem if Congress enters into an FNC with another country and the FNC addresses immigration issues between the US and the other country, because that would supersede the States' authority.

I don't either, but that seems to be part of what critics are arguing. As I said, I'm not knowledgeable of the Federal Law on THAT level of detail. I was hoping you and a couple others (including this thread's other poster, Freddy) would be able to shed some light.

It seems though, that you reject both of their arguments.

The first one, that there are plenty of other "inconveniences" businesses on the books already, has pretty much ended their argument in my book.

It's the second one, however, that I'm hoping we can get some more detail on. I too was unaware of any such law, but then I am not very educated on the issue of Federal Law.

[Freddy]

Here is what the US Constitution says concerning immigration.

Article I: Section 8, The Powers of Congress, Clause 4,

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,..."

To me this means how an immigrant can become a US citizen is Congresses' power.

In Article I: Section 10, Powers Prohibited of States, I do not see anything that prevents the states from enforcing immigration law.

"Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Article IV to me says that all states' laws are to be honored in Section 1 and all citizens shall be treated the same in each state in Section 2.

[Cartesiantheater]

Thanks for the find Freddy.

[Ningishiddza]

It's the second one, however, that I'm hoping we can get some more detail on. I too was unaware of any such law, but then I am not very educated on the issue of Federal Law.

As an example, the FNC between the US and France requires all US passport holders to obtain a visa prior to entering France. If you do not obtain a visa prior to arriving at an entry point, you cannot enter France.

That's very different from the FNC between the US and UK, which allows US passport holders to arrive in the UK by any means (Chunnel, ferry, air) and obtain a visa granting 6 months leave on the spot. UK passport holders entering the US only get 30 days leave on the spot, but they can extend it (by going to any INS office), or obtain a longer visa in advance from a US diplomatic mission somewhere.

I'd have to believe if immigration issues were addressed in an FNC between the US and Mexico, it would have been superseded by NAFTA, assuming NAFTA addresses it (immigration is part of the protocols under the Friendship Section in any Friendship, Navigation and Commerce Treaty but not all countries have specific requirements just for Americans -- France does).

If I were Arizona, I'd argue the Last-in-Time Rule. The last law enacted is the one that's in effect where the Federal government and the States have joint or dual authority.

A good example is collection laws. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) you're awarded $1,000 in statutory damages per action, regardless if the debt collector violates 1 act of the statute or 100 acts of the statute. State collection laws are much stricter. The Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act (OCSPA) allows statutory damages of $200 per violation of the FDCPA, not per action. If you sue for 10 violations of the FDCPA (file in state court and it'll get removed to federal court anyway) you get $1,000 in statutory damages under federal law, plus $2,000 under Ohio state law.

The FDCPA expressly states that creditors are not debt collectors under the act, but state laws can claim that creditors are collectors and hold creditors to the same standards as debt collectors under federal law (and California and many other states do -- but not Ohio).

It would appear the States can enact more stringent immigration laws, so long as those laws do not conflict with naturalization laws. Immigration and naturalization are not the same thing. Naturalization is the process of becoming a US Citizen, immigration is the process of entering the US for a variety of reasons, including to become naturalized.

If immigration is addressed in NAFTA, or any FNC with South American countries, then that creates the same problem we saw with the Military Commissions Act. Enforcement of the Act violated treaties. Does Congress have the authority to abrogate treaties? No, only a sitting president has that authority. So those parts would have been stricken, but for those parts of the Act that conflicted with other US laws, the Last-in-Time Rule would apply.

It would also apply if an illegal fled the jurisdiction of one state and ended up in Arizona. Arizona doesn't have to extradite and they can reject the other other state's "Long Arm" statutes because Arizona law is more recent.

I don't see how the Plaintiffs can argue anything under Interstate Commerce, but it does have a really wide latitude thanks to a lot of bone-headed court rulings. Of course, it was the Interstate Commerce clause that gave Congress the authority to enforce many of the Civil Rights laws.

I bet that's what they're doing. They're going to liken immigration to civil rights, and stick in the 14th Amendment somewhere.

I don't understand why Arizona doesn't file a Writ of Mandamus and get either a state or federal judge to order the appropriate federal agencies to do their jobs. Especially in state court. The judge could hold those agencies in contempt and levy fines on them, which I'm sure Arizona and just about every other state could use right now.

[Reef Badlaw]

After all the hopped-up hype over the AZ immigration-law 'promoting' racial-profiling, by everyone from Mexican-President; Calderon, to the LA school-board, to Attorney General; Holder, to Catholic Bishops, to Boycott Arizona cabals, to mainstream media, to President Obama... the Government's lawsuit is strictly about a state's authority to over-ride a federal law that-says-the-same-thing... ? Where's the mention of racial-profiling??!!!!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39413.html

-What a colossal waste of 'wind'-power, on a suit that has little chance of winning.

Btw, I agree with CT that if we eliminate employers who hire illegals, the problem goes away immediately.

[clang]

After all the hopped-up hype over the AZ immigration-law 'promoting' racial-profiling, by everyone from Mexican-President; Calderon, to the LA school-board, to Attorney General; Holder, to Catholic Bishops, to Boycott Arizona cabals, to mainstream media, to President Obama... the Government's lawsuit is strictly about a state's authority to over-ride a federal law that-says-the-same-thing... ? Where's the mention of racial-profiling??!!!!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39413.html

-What a colossal waste of 'wind'-power, on a suit that has little chance of winning.

Btw, I agree with CT that if we eliminate employers who hire illegals, the problem goes away immediately.

I agree with both of you that going after employers is an important step, but that will not completely solve the problem. They still need to do a much better job of defending the border and eliminating sanctuary cities.

[Reef Badlaw]

I agree with both of you that going after employers is an important step, but that will not completely solve the problem. They still need to do a much better job of defending the border and eliminating sanctuary cities.

Yep. 'Sanctuary City' means 'Please don't harm us, Hispanic crime-gangs, because we're surrendering unutterably to you, so please go cause mayhem in those awful cities that don't have enough wisdom to surrender to you-CITY'.

[JenaS62]

I agree with both of you that going after employers is an important step, but that will not completely solve the problem. They still need to do a much better job of defending the border and eliminating sanctuary cities.

Except that we know that under Obama, worksite enforcement has dropped by like 75%. Seems to be that he really does not want to stop illegal immigration.

[clang]

Except that we know that under Obama, worksite enforcement has dropped by like 75%. Seems to be that he really does not want to stop illegal immigration.

Agreed. Always look at what the other hand is doing.

[Reef Badlaw]

And speaking of Sanctuary Cities... How in-the-hell are those municipalities NOT BEING SUED by the Government under the same aegis as the AZ-bill ???!!!?