Arizona Law Penalizing Employers Who Hire Illegal Workers Is Preempted, Says Solicitor General

The Obama Administration late Friday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to find that Arizona’s law penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants is preempted by federal law.

The Court asked for the views of the Office of Solicitor General last November. The case, already controversial within the nation’s business community, drew increased attention as speculation heightened that Solicitor General Elena Kagan was a leading contender to fill a potential Supreme Court vacancy. Political and academic observers viewed the government’s response as a possible window into how it would regard Arizona’s most recent law authorizing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants as well as into Kagan’s own views.

However, Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, responded to the Court’s invitation. He urged the justices to hear Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Candelaria and to reverse a ruling in March 2009 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit which upheld the controversial state law.

The Chamber of Commerce filed a petition for Supreme Court review asking the justices to answer three questions: whether the Arizona, which imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized immigrants, is invalid under the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act; whether the state law, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary; and whether the law is impliedly preempted because it undermines the “comprehensive scheme” that Congress created to regulate the employment of immigrants.

Katyal urged the justices to answer the first question only. He noted that states and localities throughout the country have enacted—and are continuing to consider and enact—statutes and ordinances regulating the employment of unauthorized workers.

He said the employer sanctions “disrupt a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country.”

The Court’s review of the other two questions, he said, was not necessary. He explained that the E-Verify question may soon be overtaken by events because Congress would be reviewing program in 2012. In addition, he said, federal law appears to make participation voluntary and would thus bar a state law mandating participating.

The Court is expected to make a decision on whether to hear the case before it ends the current term.

Comments

[ix chel]

That would be because it doesn´t say all citizens...it says all persons...and illegal immigrants are PERSONS, Londa.

Joseph, you give it to them but under federal law there is no requirement to verify that the card or any identification is legitimate, only that it looks legitimate. Also, the only one that can penalize based on the IRCA is the Federal government and all state laws are pre-empted.

[Londa]

"Let's not forget the 14th Amendment that requires that all citizens be treated equally."

Evelyn - Since when is an illegal immigrant a "citizen"?

Adopting new illegal immigration laws (whether state or federal) mean nothing unless you enforce them. Until the federal government enforces the laws we currently have in place, the individual states will continue to adopt their own so they can enforce them. Illegal immigration is financially draining our state and local revenue to the breaking point. We cannot sustain the expense any longer. In addition, the criminal element associated with illegal immigration has become to great for our communities to bear as well.

[Evelyn]

Still, you have to consider the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Let's not forget the 14th Amendment that requires that all citizens be treated equally. Who really believes that will happen when the law goes into effect?
Whether you're for the new Arizona immigration law or against it, you are free to have your own opinion and make people aware of it.

Cast your vote - each comment counts.
http://immigration.civiltalks.com

[Joseph Marchelewski]

Employers aren't supposed to hire illegal immigrants. Isn't that why we all have to give our employers copies of our social security cards? Why shouldn't we penalize employers who aren't following this rule?