[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Supreme Court to look at Arizona's employer-sanctions law - Ruling will likely affect legislation across the nation Supreme Court to look at Arizona's employer-sanctions law Ruling will likely affect legislation across the nation by Craig Harris - Dec. 5, 2010 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic Arizona again will be in the national spotlight regarding illegal immigration when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday on whether the state can punish employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers. At issue is the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, commonly called the employer-sanctions law, which was among the first in which a state tried to assume control of what previously had been strictly a federal function. The landmark has withstood challenges in U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which have said the law is constitutional. The act emboldened Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who unlike other sheriffs across the state has used it to conduct 40 raids on businesses accused of employing illegal immigrants. Those busts have resulted in 308 arrests for identity theft and forgery, while two employers have faced civil sanctions. Supporters and opponents of the law agree the Supreme Court's ruling could have sweeping ramifications. If the law is upheld, other states likely would consider similar legislation. The ruling also could influence the future of Arizona's broader immigration legislation, Senate Bill 1070. That law, enacted this year, created a firestorm and spurred national boycotts by making it a state crime to be in the country illegally. A federal judge has blocked parts of SB 1070 from taking effect, and debate over its constitutionality is expected to reach the Supreme Court. Glenn Hamer, president and chief executive of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which opposes the sanctions law, said he is glad it is before the high court. "We will finally have some clarity in what states can do and cannot do in the space of illegal immigration," said Hamer, whose organization is one of 11 U.S. and Arizona business groups suing the state over the law's constitutionality. "Now you have a crazy-quilt patchwork of immigration laws around the country on the state and local levels." Hamer said the business community opposes the law because it forces Arizona companies to "play under a different set of rules" regarding employment and that sanctions for employing illegal immigrants should be applied at the federal level so that they are uniform across the country. National significance Arizona's law punishes companies by suspending or revoking their business licenses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The law also requires Arizona employers to use a federal electronic system, called E-Verify, that validates the Social Security numbers and immigration status of new hires. Opponents contend the law is unconstitutional because no lawmaking body other than Congress can establish employment standards and mandate punishment in relation to immigration issues. They also say a state cannot require businesses to enroll and participate in E-Verify. The state, however, has successfully convinced lower courts that the Legal Arizona Workers Act relies on an exemption in the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act allowing local and state governments to take civil action when it comes to licensing businesses. The courts also have ruled there is nothing in federal law that prohibits a state from mandating that employers use E-Verify. "We obviously feel good about our position. So far, every judge who has looked at this has accepted our arguments," said Arizona Solicitor General Mary O'Grady, who has defended the law and will argue before the Supreme Court. Paul Bender, an Arizona State University professor who specializes in constitutional law, said if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts' rulings, then other states will "take advantage of the licensing exception" to pass similar employer-sanctions laws. "It's potentially significant nationwide if they uphold this program," said Bender. Little enforcement While the employer-sanctions law is receiving national attention, it has punished two Arizona companies since it went into effect Jan. 1, 2008. A third company, Scottsdale Art Factory, has its case pending in Maricopa County Superior Court. The two other cases involve Danny's Subway, a Phoenix sandwich shop that was forced to close for two days in 2010 for violating the law, and Waterworld. The water park, formerly in northeast Phoenix, had its business license suspended for 10 days for violating the law. The punishment for Waterworld was symbolic because the company was out of business when the penalty was announced in December 2009. Except in Maricopa County, the law has had a minimal effect. Many county prosecutors have not spent state funds to enforce the law because there are so few complaints. Yet in the state's most populous county, Arpaio has used the law to conduct 40 investigations into businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants. The first investigation came one month after the law took effect. The latest was Nov. 15, at Nunez Creative Landscaping in El Mirage. In all, there were 452 arrests, 308 of those for identity theft and forgery. Meanwhile, 131 individuals who were suspected of being in the country illegally were turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Arpaio said he believes the employer-sanctions law has been effective in getting illegal immigrants to leave Arizona. "If you look at what we are doing, we are the only ones doing it," Arpaio said. Arpaio said law enforcement is hampered in filing civil lawsuits against businesses who hire illegal immigrants because the sanctions law does not give prosecutors subpoena power to obtain records. The business community was successful during the 2010 legislative session in keeping that power from prosecutors. Regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, Arpaio said he still plans to continue workplace raids. "The Supreme Court will not change the way I do business," he said. Unique case The employer-sanctions hearing comes just more than a month after the Supreme Court heard a legal challenge to Arizona's private-school tax-credit program and whether it violates the separation of church and state. The high court also agreed last week to hear arguments next spring on the constitutionality of a key component of Arizona's public campaign-finance system. And, arguments over SB 1070 are expected to reach the high court. Bender, who argued the case against the tax-credit program before the Supreme Court, said it is extremely rare for one state to have a handful of cases before the Supreme Court in such a short time. "Arizona is beginning to play a large role in constitutional law in this country," Bender said. The employer-sanctions case also has a unique twist in that Justice Elena Kagan is recused from the case because of a possible conflict of interest. The former U.S. solicitor general will not vote because her former office in May asked the high court to consider a challenge to the law. That leaves eight justices to hear the case. If it results in a 4-4 tie among the remaining justices, the lower-court rulings will stand and the employer-sanctions law will remain in effect. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/12/05/20101205legal-arizona-workers-act-questioned.html#ixzz17HY5TgS6
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: Red Jones, 4 (#0)
Big ups to AZ for trying to stop the planned destruction of our country.
IMHO the Arizona Republican leaders are merely playing a game where they put into effect a law that was designed to be ineffective. IMHO they're frauds, not really loyal to the cause they say they're loyal to. If they wanted to stop illegals, then they should have audited the employers to look at their employees. It is not expensive and it is not intrusive to do that. The alternative of occasionally catching an illegal and sending them to prison does more harm. In south carolina the state simply audits the employers' payrolls. In time they get all the employers. and they say the percent who are in compliance has gone way up since they started. When they find an illegal or illegals on the payroll of an employer, they simply tell the employer who is free to let them go without penalty. This is what happens and the illegals just voluntarily leave south carolina. I do not believe that Arizona lawmakers are too stupid to be unable to figure that out. I feel they are just reading their scripts in a play designed to show us that we lost.
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||