Obama Administration wants Arizona to stop punishment of employers who hire illegals

Discussion in 'Politics' started by USArmyRetired, May 29, 2010.

  1. USArmyRetired

    USArmyRetired BANNED

    May 29, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Hello. I am Tea Party Ted. I can't post a link until I have 15 post I believe. can't believe the Administration wants to challenge Arizona and make them stop santioning employers who hire illegal aliens who cross the border. Do you believe this is a way for Obama to show support for illegals in case he goes for the Amnesty issue this summer? I personally think it is because that would help the Democrats and him out in the future upcoming elections. I also think that it is wrong for the federal government to infringe on state's rights.

    From the Arizona Star this morning:


    PHOENIX - The Obama administration wants the U.S. Supreme Court to void Arizona's two-year-old employer-sanctions law, designed to punish companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers.

    In legal papers filed Friday, Department of Justice attorneys argue the law illegally infringes on the exclusive rights of the federal government. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said it conflicts with a federal law barring states from imposing any sort of penalties on those who employ people not in the country legally.

    Katyal said a federal judge in Phoenix and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both got it wrong in concluding Arizona's law fits within allowable exceptions.

    David Selden, attorney for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said Friday's intervention by the Department of Justice is a good sign. Employers groups have challenged the legality of the statute from the start.

    It also is a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups that believe the law is discriminatory.

    Molly Edwards, spokeswoman for the state Attorney General's Office, said it is "unfortunate that the Department of Justice has taken a belated position against Arizona's efforts to reduce the demand for illegal labor."

    The move, though, portends potentially bigger problems for the state.

    The Justice Department is also weighing whether to ask a federal court to invalidate SB 1070, which requires police to question those they stop for other reasons about their immigration status if they reasonably suspect they are in this country illegally. It also makes being an illegal immigrant a violation of state law.

    A decision to sue over SB 1070 could depend on whether the Department of Justice believes the state is treading on turf reserved exclusively for the federal government, which is the conclusion federal prosecutors reached on the employer-sanctions law.

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act, approved by Congress in 1986, precludes states and cities from imposing any civil or criminal penalties on companies for hiring illegal immigrants. But the same law allows states to have their own "licensing or similar laws."

    Based on that, Arizona legislators enacted the Legal Arizona Worker Act. It allows a judge to suspend any licenses of any firm found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers; a second offense within three years puts the company out of business.

    Lower courts said the Arizona law fits within that exception. The Obama administration disagrees.

    "The Arizona statute is not at bottom a 'licensing or similar law,' " Katyal wrote in his brief to the high court. "It is instead a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate sanction."

    As proof, Katyal said nothing in the law allowing a license to be taken away requires a judge to determine if a company has the right character or qualifications to engage in the business.

    "It identifies only one basis for suspending or revoking an employer's licenses - the knowing or intentional employment of an unauthorized alien," he continued. "And the decision whether to suspend or revoke is made on an across-the-board basis by a state judge rather than on a license-by-license basis by the authorities who issued them."

    Beyond that, Katyal said there are procedures that cover cases where federal officials accuse employers of hiring undocumented workers, including the ability to appeal. That, he said, is not the case in Arizona.

    "Proceedings occur before local judges, with no possibility of federal district court review," Katyal said. And he said Arizona law, unlike its federal counterpart, has no provision banning discrimination.
  2. rdean

    rdean rddean

    Aug 9, 2009
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    If the law already exists, why do they need a second one? Why not just report lawbreakers to the Federal Government?

    Republicans might seriously consider how to enforce such a law.

    If you get rid of all the people picking lettuce, you'll end up with $40 lettuce. Is that what Republicans want? Republicans will NEVER be out picking lettuce. Not a single leaf.
  3. Flopper

    Flopper Gold Member

    Mar 23, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    The two year old law that the Justice Dept. seeks to overturn violates federal law in the opinion of the attorney general. The new immigration reform bill contains provisions to punish those that hire illegals so I wouldn't say the Obama administration wants to let these employers off the hook. The real story behind this is a federal government fight to maintain control of immigration which is a power reserve for the federal government. Even thou the feds are doing a pretty poor job does not give the states the right to control immigration into their state. To allow each state to create their own immigrations laws would lead to chaos.

Share This Page