Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Penalizing Businesses For Hiring Illegal Immigrants

This is just coming in. Today the Supreme Court upheld an AZ law that penalizes businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

It is a key decision for several reasons:

The federal government has failed to act on the many problems with illegal immigrants

The state law has been upheld a challenge from the federal gov, despite the argument that federal law trumps state law.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona's law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.

By a 5-3 vote, the court said Wednesday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

The decision upholding the validity of the 2007 law comes as the state is appealing a ruling that blocked key components of a second, more controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I think this is an important win for states and immigration policy. I love the fact that we are geat melting pot country but I hate the fact that so many people enter this country illegally. And no I'm not talking about mexicans but people from all over the world. My stepfather had to work damn hard to become a US citizen. He has a job and contributes to this country quite well. He's never needed a hand out and owns his own business selling alternative eco-friendly agricultural products. I love my stepfather with all my heart and because everyday he shows me what it truly means to be an American. If we don't get control of our immigration problem people like him won't be able to enter this country. No one will and thats sad.

Originally posted by mishigas

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona's law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

This is big. If all states would enact similar legislation, this would be one hurdle we never have to argue again. This decision allows States to assert their rights in immigration matters, but in no way solves our immigration problems. It is a start though. The Department of Justice and Homeland Security are overreaching their bounds by threatening and trying to regulate.

There has to come a time when the states reassert their authority, and reign in the federal government. If it has to be one baby step at a time, so be it. This is a good way to get our country back, simply by fighting tooth and nail with the government agencies who think they have more rights than the states.

reply to post by retiredTxn

This is big. If all states would enact similar legislation, this would be one hurdle we never have to argue again. This decision allows States to assert their rights in immigration matters, but in no way solves our immigration problems. It is a start though. The Department of Justice and Homeland Security are overreaching their bounds by threatening and trying to regulate.

There has to come a time when the states reassert their authority, and reign in the federal government. If it has to be one baby step at a time, so be it. This is a good way to get our country back, simply by fighting tooth and nail with the government agencies who think they have more rights than the states.

True, but it's a difficult battle, when you have cities and whole states acting as - what is the word I'm searching for? - shelter cities? sanctuary cities? Well, you get what I mean.

The good thing is, this decision will act as a precedent for other states to enact similar laws.

I would love to see the 'anchor baby' laws struck down next.

They only ruled in this way because they said the federal law gives states power to do this which is funny because now the federal governments wants illegals to break down the state lines. I guess they'll have to make a new federal law of immigration now that prevents laws against immigration enforcement. And things just keep getting weirder.

Here is a pointer to the SCOTUS decision. It's a lot of legalese, as you'd expect, but I've added an excerpt that sums it up:

Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting

Arizona’s licensing law falls well within the confines of the author
ity Congress chose to leave to the States and therefore is not ex
pressly preempted. While IRCA prohibits States from imposing “civil
or criminal sanctions” on those who employ unauthorized aliens, it
preserves state authority to impose sanctions “through licensing and
similar laws.” §1324a(h)(2). That is what the Arizona law does—it
instructs courts to suspend or revoke the business licenses of in-state
employers that employ unauthorized aliens. The definition of “li
cense” contained in the Arizona statute largely parrots the definition
of “license”

Iow, AZ may not be able to throw the bums in jail, but they can revoke their license to do business in AZ.

reply to post by mishigas


I think this is finally a step in the right direction for the state of AZ. It might also catch on with the rest of the United States which is fine by me. It's time to see who really is for or against ammnesty. With this new law being acted upon, mark my words there will be several shifts in the current parties make up.

Already a thread on this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TheMessenger1

Already a thread on this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you should be alerting the other thread, since this one was authored 20 minutes earlier.