PHOTO GALLERY


National Today is August 29th, 2008|Hudson Valley Press - News for NY's Hudson Valley|Bookmark HVPress!



June 12th, 2008

State Anti-immigrant Law Challenged



 In oral arguments today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is hearing the first appellate argument in the country to address the constitutionality of a state anti-immigrant law that seeks to impose state regulation of immigrant employment. A coalition of civil rights groups is urging the court to overturn the so-called Legal Arizona Workers Act because it improperly interferes with federal law and violates due process. The coalition includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arizona, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). In separate lawsuits that have been consolidated with the civil rights coalition’s challenge on appeal, several business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have also challenged the state law. Friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the plaintiffs in both lawsuits were filed on behalf of numerous additional business and civil rights groups including several state chambers of commerce, the National Federation Of Independent Business, the Small Business Legal Center, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, the Asian American Legal Defense Education Fund, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Women's Employment Law Center. “Immigration regulation is a federal responsibility. States and cities cannot substitute their frustrations or biases for federal law. Arizona’s approach invites chaos and confusion and is causing discrimination against U.S. citizens, Latinos and legal workers,” said Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “It is astonishing that the state has passed law to raise barriers to lawful work and permanently shut down functioning businesses at a time when the economy is already in precarious condition.”

The employer sanctions law requires Arizona businesses to enroll in the voluntary federal E-verify system, an error-ridden federal database that is in an experimental stage and explicitly designated as voluntary under federal law. The statute also creates a slew of state procedures and penalties applicable to businesses accused of hiring unauthorized workers and will permanently shut down any business that is twice found in violation of the state law.
MALDEF staff attorney Kristina Campbell said, "Employers will simply avoid hiring people they think are immigrants rather than run the risk of losing their business licenses. The Legal Arizona Workers Act not only violates the U.S. Constitution, but is subjecting all Arizona employees, and Latinos in particular, to potential discrimination based on their race, ethnicity or national origin." The civil rights coalition brought the lawsuit on behalf of Valle del Sol, Inc., Chicanos por la Causa, Inc. and Somos America, three Arizona-based non-profit organizations. The coalition's lawsuit asserts that the Arizona statute violates the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process. A Phoenix federal court issued a decision in February that allowed the employer sanctions law, which went into effect January 1, to be enforced beginning March 1. “This law has already had serious social, economic and legal costs but does nothing to solve perceived immigration problems,” said Linton Joaquin, Executive Director of NILC. “It’s time we recognize that immigrants contribute greatly to this country’s economy and culture, and pass just and humane immigration reform.” The challenge to the Arizona law is the first of a number of legal challenges against recent local and state anti-immigrant laws and ordinances to be argued in a federal appeals court. Other pending legal challenges include a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and other organizations against a Hazleton, Pennsylvania local anti-immigrant ordinance. A federal court in Pennsylvania struck down the Hazleton ordinance that sought to punish landlords and employers for doing business with undocumented immigrants. That case is currently on appeal before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jonathan Weissglass of Altshuler Berzon LLP is arguing the consolidated cases, collectively referred to as Arizona Contractors Association, Et Al V. Criss Candelaria, Et Al.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs Valle del Sol, Chicanos por la Causa and Somos America include Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag and Jennifer C. Chang of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Daniel Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona; Weissglass, Stephen Berzon and Rebecca Smullin of Altshuler Berzon LLP; Campbell and Cynthia Valenzuela of MALDEF; and Joaquin and Karen C. Tumlin of NILC.
5 / 5 (1 Votes)

Copyright 2006-2008 The Hudson Valley Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Reader Response
  • Brittanicus
  • June 12th, 2008 Does the 'Supremacy clause' preempt federal law over the state, which will be interpreted by the 9th district court.? This is a far left liberal bunch of judges, who tend to rule against anything patriotic in its verdicts. This is going to be an illegal immigration decision, that is going to ring around the nation. Whether the momentum of states that have taken upon themselves to stop the infestation of illegal aliens. In the highlight is a river of sewerage who are suing Arizona. If this state has a right to arrest, detain and convict illegal aliens.

    These obnoxious entities represent the anti-sovereignty, pro-illegal immigration groups who profit from big business and others who profit on the backs of the burdened taxpayers. TODAY! NOW! we can overrule all these special interest groups, overrule lower and higher courts, if the American people want our immigration laws enforced, if their frustrated with paying higher taxes to support illegal aliens. We must demand the laggard Democratic leaders stop threatening their clan with alienation and endorse the Federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) Read the unsuppressed truth at NUMBERSUSA.

    Reader Response
  • Brittanicus
  • June 12th, 2008 The 9th District court and jurisdictions have an allergic reaction that benefits the majority of the American people. There is revolution in the air, when judges who do not play by the rules of our Constitution. These judges are sworn to uphold the laws of the the United States to protect the people from both enemies (foreign & domestic). When you see the state of affairs in California, you know these men in black gowns are pandering to the millions of illegal aliens squatting there.
    Our Country’s Constitution, states are bound under the Supremacy Clause to enforce federal immigration laws. The statutory law of the United States is part of state law just as if it were written into state statute. This is why I am so disappointed that many of our cities, activist liberal judges and police administrators have made the political decision to not enforce the law. As you know, there is no legal barrier hindering local police from inquiring about a person’s immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather. This was codified in a 2005, 9 – 0 landmark decision, by the U.S. Supreme Court in Muehler vs. Mena.

    You wont believe this: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/06/12/viral_video_on_immigration_costs NUMBERSUSA.

                  Let Your Voice Be Heard ... Fill Out the Reader Response Form Below
    Your name:
    Your email:
    Article Title:
    Comment Text:


    *Posts do not appear immediately

    digg it MyWeb Google
    Slashdot del.icio.us Technorati
     


    Google

    How do you rate Sen. Hillary Clinton’s convention speech?
    Thumbs up
    Thumbs down
    Didn't watch it









     

    HEADLINES



    HVPress.net | Copyright © 2006-2008 Hudson Valley Press. All rights reserved. | Use of this site indicates your agreement to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy for our Site. | HVPress.net