We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

Stewart J Lawrence

Friday 27 May 2011

Arizona’s big win on immigration law

The supreme court decision upholding LAWA makes immigration reform next to impossible now for the Obama administration

The most recent appointee to the US supreme court, justice Sonia Sotomayor, was one of three dissenters in Thursday’s ruling for Arizona’s legislative right to sanction businesses employing undocumented immigrant workers

Guardian.co.uk

Thursday’s decision by the US supreme court to uphold a 2007 Arizona state law punishing businesses that hire illegal aliens has just thrown a huge monkey wrench into the nation’s immigration policy debate.

In fact, it’s a landmark decision that threatens to push the boundary line between federal and state authority for immigration closer to the federalist principle that states have a right to initiate their own laws – a huge blow to traditonalists, including Obama justice department lawyers, who insist that the US constitution gives the federal government a near-monopoly on the making and enforcing of the nation’s immigration laws.

The 2007 law in question, known as the Legal Arizona Workers Act, or LAWA, allows state authorities to suspend, and if necessary, to revoke the business licences of employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Even more striking, the law also mandates that employers adopt a workplace verification system known as “E-Verify” to screen prospective employees based on their legal status.

Two lower courts ruled in 2008 that LAWA was constitutional, despite furious challenges from a coalition of civil rights and immigration rights organisations, and business groups, which saw the sanctions law as likely to interfere with their ability to hire cheap foreign labour. The two lower courts, and now the US supreme court, cited a critical but little-known 1976 supreme court decision upholding a state employer sanctions law in California, as well as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, or IRCA, which established a new federal employer sanctions regime, but explicitly excluded issues relating to “business licencing” from the scope of the law.

US supreme court chief justice John Roberts cited that “savings clause” in his majority ruling that has upheld LAWA as constitutional. Three liberal justices, including Sonia Sotomayor disagreed, saying the 1986 law should “pre-empt” – meaning supercede – LAWA. Elena Kagan, the most recently appointed justice, citing a conflict of interest, had earlier recused herself from the court’s deliberations.

The Obama administration had hoped that the supreme court would strike Arizona’s 2007 law down, as part of a broader push toward eliminating the growing patchwork of state laws that have emerged in the wake of the failure of Congress to pass meaningful immigration reform legislation. Instead, the court’s decision is likely to do just the opposite: embolden conservatives – and even some progressive groups that favour local “sancutary” laws protecting illegal immigrants from being deported – to pass even more state-level laws.

The court’s decision will also have two immediate practical effects. First, it will protect employer sanctions laws like Arizona’s in about a dozen other states, including Alabama and Utah, from being overturned. Some of those laws are copycat Arizona laws, while others go only slightly beyond current federal law, but might still have been subject to challenge.

Second, the court’s ruling is also likely to raise fresh doubts about the Obama administration’s core constitutional argument against Arizona’s better-known, and more controversial “show me your papers” enforcement law, SB 1070, which a federal appeals court has agreed to place on hold. Arizona recently announced that it will appeal that decision to the supreme court.

Another implication of the court’s decision is its likely impact on the congressional debate on workplace enforcement. Conservatives have been pushing for E-Verify, a federal workplace enforcement system largely restricted to the public sector, to be implemented nationwide. Critics, including supporters of an “amnesty” programme, have argued that the system is still too technically flawed to be phased in, and requires further study.

The supreme court’s decision could also have important implications for Utah’s new “guest worker” law, which critics say also infringes on the federal government’s constitutional “primacy” in the area of immigration policy. Passed two months ago, the Utah guest worker law goes further than any state immigration law to date by allowing state authorities to negotiate directly with Mexico over the provision of visas to Mexican labourers seeking to work for US firms on temporary labour contracts.

To implement the law, Utah would need a formal waiver from the federal government, which, by law, currently provides all US visas to visiting foreign nationals. Alternatively, the Obama administration could try to have the Utah law overturned by the US supreme court, and despite the latest Arizona decision, it still could well win – given the far-reaching scope of the Utah law, and the lack of any precedent for state involvement in visa control.

But that’s exactly what critics of LAWA said – and instead, the court has moved squarely in the other direction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/27/us-supreme-court-usimmigration

E-Verify: Driver’s Data May be Used to Check Workers’ Status

Fox News

The use of E-Verify could figure prominently in any immigration debate in Congress this session. Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, cheered a Supreme Court ruling on Thursday sustaining Arizona’s state law requiring …

HERE

Ariz. E-Verify Victory in U.S. Supreme Court Adds Pressure for House to Pass National Mandate This Summer (Senate in the Fall)

By Roy Beck, Thursday, May 26, 2011

posted on NumbersUSA

The most important result of today’s Supreme Court ruling probably is not what will happen in the states but in Congress. With more than a dozen states with different E-Verify laws and different rules for businesses — and with the Supreme Court opening the way for all other states to adopt their own rules — the business lobbies ought to be ready to work with Congress to pass a uniform national law.

Many businesses that operate in multiple states are already complaining to their lobbyists that they don’t like operating under all the different rules and would prefer a national law.

(Look at our map of all the states with mandatory E-verify laws. And check out some of the details on each. )

Unless Congress passes a mandatory E-Verify law this year, at least a dozen more states are likely next winter to pass their own E-Verify laws.

One of the complaints that business lobbyists are hearing from their members in states WITH E-Verify laws is that they don’t like competing with businesses in other states that are allowed to use cheaper illegal labor while forcing taxpayers to subsidize them. So many businesses in E-Verify states are joining us in the pressure for a national law.

BUSINESS LOBBIES HAVE BLOCKED TOTAL E-VERIFY IN CONGRESS FOR 15 YEARS — BUT WE HAVE BEEN WINNING STEP VICTORIES

Lobbyists for business groups and illegal-alien advocacy groups have blocked Congress from passing a national mandatory law since 1996.

NumbersUSA and its allies have fought every year to win incremental victories. First, to create the workplace verification system as a pilot program for just a few states. Later, to expand the voluntary system nationwide. Most recently to persuade Pres. Obama to mandate its use for all federal contractors.

If the Supreme Court had knocked us down today, the business lobbies would have looked out over a whole nation without any states requring employers to electronically verify that they weren’t hiring illegal foreign workers. And they would have felt little pressure to do anything other than they’ve always done, which is to throw all their weight in Congress toward protecting employers that prefer to hire illegal aliens over unemployed Americans.

But not now.

THIS WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT IMMIGRATION COURT CASE — AND WE WON IT

The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 09-115.

Of all the open-border groups’ court challenges against immigration enforcement across the country, this suit before the U.S. Supreme Court (that was heard last December) was/is by far the most important.

AND WE WON IT 5-3!

Nothing will do more to retard future illegal immigration and accelerate the departure of the current illegal population than taking away the job magnet.

Arizona and more than a dozen other states have already passed various versions of E-Verify law. All of those could have been wiped out when the Supreme Court announced its decision this morning.

But instead, our strategy of mandating E-Verify in as many states as possible to pressure Congress to do it nationwide has been approved by the highest court of the land.

NumbersUSA’s AMICUS BRIEF WAS PART OF THIS COURT CASE

You may remember that as soon as the Supreme Court began business last fall NumbersUSA filed an Amicus brief in support of the State of Arizona making sure that the Justices and their clerks were aware of a number of important legal and factual points that we weren’t certain were in the main briefs.

Here are links to my various blogs on our Amicus:

•WHAT WE TOLD SUPREME COURT (No. 1) — Our ‘Summary of Argument’ In Support Of STATES Mandating E-Verify
•OUR AMICUS TO SUPREME COURT (No. 2) — Chamber Is Wrong That U.S. Law Forbids Ariz To Pull Licenses of Illegal-Alien-Hiring Biz
•Biz Lobbyists Try To Stop State E-Verify Laws, Claiming ‘Burden’ To Business — HERE IS WHY THEY ARE WRONG
The key issue in the court case was whether Arizona could take away the business license of an employer who refuses to use E-Verify.

The NumbersUSA Amicus went into great detail in showing that such a state law is precisely what Congress has set up as a state enforcement option over the last 25 years.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts who said that Arizona’s E-Verify law “falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states.”

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. (The newest Justice, Elena Kagan, was not involved in this case because she had been part of Pres. Obama’s support of the Chamber of Commerce before she was elected to the Court.)

Please keep opening our email Alerts and joining with your fellow citizens in considering all the actions we will be offering you the next weeks to get a vote on E-Verify on the House floor this summer and in the Senate by fall.

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN PART OF THE EFFORTS TO MOVE THIS E-VERIFY ISSUE FORWARD.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA’s blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. HEREViews and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.
Subscribe to our Blog Feed

HERE

OP-ED

Carmaker Porsche rates praise for ignoring boycott pleas

The Marietta Daily Journal

May 25, 2011

It looks like Porsche has no problems with the new Georgia law that mandates that all companies with more than 10 employees use the free, federal E-Verify system to determine whether those people are in the country legally.

Porsche announced last week that it plans to build a $100 million complex on the site of the former Ford Motors plant in Hapeville near Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. It’s a huge coup for Georgia, not just because Porsche is one of the world’s most highly regarded automakers, but because the announcement comes at a time when the state’s economy is otherwise near-stagnant.

Opponents of HB 87, Georgia’s new law aimed at illegal immigrants, argued vociferously that the law’s E-Verify mandate would constitute a severe hardship on business. As it turned out, those businesses – primarily the chambers of commerce, the hospitality industry and agriculture – proved only that they have no qualms about taking jobs away from U.S. citizens and handing them to illegals, all so that the business can pocket a bigger profit.

Some opponents have even gone so far as to try and hatch a boycott of the state in response to HB 87. But those efforts may be stillborn in light of last week’s news that the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials and the Latin American Chamber of Commerce oppose the idea, saying it would hurt Hispanics who work in the state’s tourism industry.

Another effort to fight the new law came in recent days with word that Somos Republicans, an Arizona group that roughly translates to “We are Republicans,” is lobbying Porsche to bypass Georgia because of the new law. Somos, which purports to build support for Republicans causes and candidates, is openly supportive of the DREAM amnesty act and against laws like Georgia’s.

“We urge Porsche to reconsider your choice of Georgia as the site of a new headquarters facility, as we don’t believe Georgia has provided an accurate picture of Georgia’s economy and the regression into a past era where Georgia experienced some of the worst bigotry in modern times,” said an open letter from Somos to Porsche last week.

Replied Porsche flatly: “We are staying in Georgia.”

As usual, those without much of an argument to make fall back on crying “Racism!” But Georgia’s new law was carefully written to prevent officers from stopping people at random or based on skin color or appearance to ask about their immigration status. And its requirement that those being stopped produce some sort of identification applies to everyone who is stopped in the course of a police investigation into a reported crime, not just to illegals. It’s one of the most routine questions that police ever ask, in fact: “Can you please provide some identification, sir?” Those who can’t produce ID are up the creek, so to speak, regardless of their immigration status.

The new law goes into effect July 1 in Georgia, which has one of the largest populations of illegal aliens in the country. The law is meant to make the state a less inviting place for illegals by making it more difficult for them to find legal employment. If they then choose to “self-deport” themselves to more hospitable climes, so be it.

In the wake of decades of Washington’s deliberate avoidance of the action on immigration reform, some states – Georgia among them – argue they have no choice but to take matters into their own hands.

Porsche is to be saluted for sticking to its guns in its decision to move to our state. That fortitude by such a high-profile company should send a strong signal to others that it Georgia continues to be a great place to do business, HB 87 or no HB 87.
Copyright 2011 The Marietta Daily Journal. All rights reserved.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Carmaker Porsche rates praise for ignoring boycott pleas

HAPPY DANCE HAPPY DANCE HAPPY DANCE!

The below from our friend Roy Beck at NumbersUSA.com

HUGE E-VERIFY VICTORY IN U.S. SUPREME COURT JUST ANNOUNCED!!!

Arizona’s Mandatory E-Verify Law Upheld, Opening Way For All States To Pass Their Own

SUPREME COURT REJECTS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT ILLEGAL WORKERS & THEIR EMPLOYERS

Business Lobbyists Now Under Great Pressure To Support National E-Verify Law This Summer To Have Uniform Rules Countrywide

The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 09-115.

Of all the open-border groups’ court challenges against immigration enforcement across the country, this suit before the U.S. Supreme Court (that was heard last December) was/is by far the most important.

AND WE WON IT 5-3!

Nothing will do more to retard future illegal immigration and accelerate the departure of the current illegal population than taking away the job magnet.

Arizona and more than a dozen other states have already passed various versions of E-Verify law. All of those could have been wiped out when the Supreme Court announced its decision this morning.

But instead, our strategy of mandating E-Verify in as many states as possible to pressure Congress to do it nationwide has been approved by the highest court of the land.

NumbersUSA’s AMICUS BRIEF WAS PART OF THIS COURT CASE

You may remember that as soon as the Supreme Court began business last fall NumbersUSA filed an Amicus brief in support of the State of Arizona making sure that the Justices and their clerks were aware of a number of important legal and factual points that we weren’t certain were in the main briefs. (You can read a lot of our Amicus language by looking for my blogs on the subject on our website.)

We are thankful to all of you who have voluntarily made financial contributions to NumbersUSA so that we are able to move quickly to make a difference in key situations when they arise.

I will pause just for these two paragraphs to note that just before the Supreme Court announcement Jim Robb sent you our monthly end-of-month email giving you an opportunity to help us meet our monthly budget obligations so we can always be in the middle of fights that most matter.

Please read that email which is all about the E-Verify fight in Congress. And please click here to make a donation if you have never done so — or haven’t made one in awhile. Thanks to all of you who believe in our mutual cause and back up that belief with your time, your actions and your financial support.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/make-donation.html

RULING GIVES HUGE BOOST TO EFFORTS
TO PASS E-VERIFY BILL IN CONGRESS THIS SUMMER

Lobbyists for business groups and illegal-alien advocacy groups have blocked Congress from passing a national mandatory law since 1996.

NumbersUSA and its allies have fought every year to win incremental victories. First, to create the workplace verification system as a pilot program for just a few states. Later, to expand the voluntary system nationwide. Most recently to persuade Pres. Obama to mandate its use for all federal contractors.

If the Supreme Court had knocked us down today, the business lobbies would have looked out over a whole nation without any states requring employers to electronically verify that they weren’t hiring illegal foreign workers. And they would have felt little pressure to do anything other than they’ve always done, which is to throw all their weight in Congress toward protecting employers that prefer to hire illegal aliens over unemployed Americans.

But not now.

With more than a dozen states with different E-Verify laws and different rules for businesses — and with the Supreme Court opening the way for all other states to adopt their own rules — the business lobbies will get a lot of pressure from their members to back a uniform national law.

Many businesses that operate in multiple states are already complaining to their lobbyists that they don’t like operating under all the different rules and would prefer a national law.

The Supreme Court today added a whole lot more oomph to that pressure on business lobbyists to join us in a national law requiring a system that the businesses already using it praise as one of the most effective and easiest programs of the federal government.

MORE ON THE SUPREME COURT RULING

The key issue in the court case was whether Arizona could take away the business license of an employer who refuses to use E-Verify.

The NumbersUSA Amicus went into great detail in showing that such a state law is precisely what Congress has set up as a state enforcement option over the last 25 years.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts who said that Arizona’s E-Verify law “falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states.”

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. (The newest Justice, Elena Kagan, was not involved in this case because she had been part of Pres. Obama’s support of the Chamber of Commerce before she was elected to the Court.)

Please keep opening our email Alerts and joining with your fellow citizens in considering all the actions we will be offering you the next weeks to get a vote on E-Verify on the House floor this summer and in the Senate by fall.

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN PART OF THE EFFORTS TO MOVE THIS E-VERIFY ISSUE FORWARD.

Roy Beck
NumbersUSA.com

CBS Atlanta

Usual suspects still ranting and raving over Georgia immigration law

Hundreds of protestors lined the streets in downtown Atlanta in opposition to Georgia’s new immigration law. — Adelina Nicholls from the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights said they’re fighting for mothers and kids who will be affected by the new law. — “We are afraid but we are here… it will not stop the movement for immigration reform,” Nicholls said…

HERE

Brian Robinson, Deputy chief of staff for communications

Robinson oversees the governor’s communications department. He joined the Deal for Governor campaign as communications director after working more than seven years in the Georgia congressional delegation. He worked five years as deputy chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Grantville) and two years as communications director for U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Marietta). The 1997 magna cum laude graduate of UGA’s Grady College of Journalism began his career as a copy editor at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Robinson’s roots are in the Augusta region; he now lives in Atlanta

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

GOP group urges Porsche to build HQ outside Georgia

A Hispanic Republican group opposed to Georgia’s new immigration enforcement law is asking Porsche to reconsider building its new North American headquarters in the state. — Somos Republicans — an Arizona-based organization aimed at increasing the number of Latinos voting for Republican candidates — made the request in an open letter it issued Friday concerning Georgia’s House Bill 87…

HERE