Here is the latest installment of news stories reporting the continued invasion of America and the threats to American sovereignty.
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.
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.
Scotus Upholds AZ Use of E-Verify In Chamber of Commerce Attempt To Hold Businesses Harmless In Hiring Illegal AliensAuthor: Al
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.
So another bunch of progressives want to stop the use of the word “illegal aliens” because it’s offensive. As reported by cultureandmediainstitute.com
The label “remains offensive to Latinos, and especially Mexicans, and to the fundamentals of American jurisprudence,” wrote Leo E. Laurence, a member of the SPJ Diversity Committee and the editor the San Diego News Service (which appears to be this blog that was last updated in August, 2009…Laurence argues that the terms “undocumented immigrant” or “undocumented worker” should replace “illegal immigrant,” because the U.S. legal system presumes that one is innocent until proven guilty.
These idiots like to imagine that U.N. mandates trump America’s Constitution. Dream on progressives. First, if these illegals decided to enter America legally, we wouldn’t even be discussing this. Second, why should illegals (non-citizens) be afforded the rights of our legal citizens. Third, no how many times you try change the meaning of the word, the bottom line is they are illegal. Ok, lets just call them criminals and see how they like that.
I’ll just stick to illegal alien – ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN, ALIEN, ILLEGAL ALIEN,
Hmm, I wonder what constituency she is pandering to here? It must be the legal U.S. relatives of the illegals.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is “un-American.”
The speaker, condemning raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, referred to the immigrants she was addressing as “very, very patriotic.”
“Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?” Pelosi told a mostly Hispanic gathering at St. Anthony’s Church in San Francisco. link