Archive for May 28th, 2011

Hopefully, this will promote more states’ actions holding businesses accountable for hiring illegal aliens. Here are some stories from this past week regarding the ramifications of the SCOTUS ruling.

The first is a quote from an opinion piece written by AZ lawmaker, Russell Pearce, a key actor in precipitating the SCOTUS case by The US Chamber of Commerce.

Supreme Court Sides With AZ In Use Of Employment Verification Hailed By AZ Lawmaker

By Russell Pearce, guest commentary East Valley Tribune

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed our great state a significant victory. It upheld our 2007 law penalizing businesses for knowingly hiring workers who are here illegally.

No longer will companies be able to ignore the rule of law and hire illegal aliens, shutting out legal Arizona workers. With the highest unemployment in a generation, we must do all we can to get Arizona back to work, and this ruling means those here legally will not have to compete with the illegal crowd. That is great news.

Gov. Haley accuses feds of making it difficult for the state to identify illegal workers

Immigration Measure Approved By South Carolina House

Justices’ Arizona Ruling on Illegal Immigration May Embolden States

Nancy L. Wild: Kudos to Pridemore for immigrant proposalv

Department of Homeland Security Daily Media Update May 27, 2011:

Time for Jersey to catch up with Arizona on immigration

ACLU Files Suit Over Indiana Immigration Laws

TX Illegal Immigration Bills Scrapped Under Pressure From Business Community To Maintain A Steady Flow of Affordable Labor To Highly Influential Industries

Pro-Illegal Immigration Groups Continue Recall Efforts For Legislators Wanting To Crack Down On Illegal immigration

Florida Illegal Immigration Efforts Buckle From Pressure From Influential Big Business

Reforms to target illegals in S.C.

Big Business Up In Arms Over State’s Illegal Immigration Enforcements

Tom Tancredo – The Republican silence on illegal immigration

Rep. Heath Shuler Reintroduces Bi-Partisan SAVE Act

 

 

The odd issue with this case rests with the fact that the “big business advocate”, The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce”, doesn’t want business held accountable for hiring illegal aliens. It makes you question  the Chamber’s allegiance to America’s sovereignty. I’m afraid it’s all about the money and illegal immigration is a boon for big business as more legal Americans become unemployed and are unable to find gainful employment.

The system is being gamed by big business  –  through deception, they financially support politicians who promote anti-illegal immigration legislation, while themselves hiring the same illegal aliens these politicians are targeting.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL. v. WHITING ET AL. (find the entire case at supremecourt.gov)

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States and various business and civil rights organizations (collectively Chamber) filed this federal preenforcement suit against those charged with administer-ing the Arizona law, arguing that the state law’s license suspensionand revocation provisions were both expressly and impliedly pre-empted by federal immigration law, and that the mandatory use of E-Verify was impliedly preempted.

 

Arizona’s requirement that employers use E-Verify is not impliedlypreempted. The IIRIRA provision setting up E-Verify contains no language circumscribing state action. It does, however, constrain federal action: absent a prior violation of federal law, “the Secretaryof Homeland Security may not require any person or . . . entity” out-side the Federal Government “to participate in” E-Verify. IIRIRA, §402(a), (e). The fact that the Federal Government may require the use of E-Verify in only limited circumstances says nothing aboutwhat the States may do. The Government recently argued just thatin another case and approvingly referenced Arizona’s law as an ex-ample of a permissible use of E-Verify when doing so.

Moreover, Arizona’s use of E-Verify does not conflict with the fed-eral scheme. The state law requires no more than that an employer, after hiring an employee, “verify the employment eligibility of theemployee” through E-Verify. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23–214(A). And the consequences of not using E-Verify are the same under the state and federal law—an employer forfeits an otherwise available rebut-table presumption of compliance with the law.