USA Green Card Immigration Blog

High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses – CNN.com.

Washington (CNN) — The Supreme Court has backed an Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants, a law that opponents, including the Obama administration, say steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.

The 5-3 ruling Thursday is a victory for supporters of immigration reform on the state level.

It was the first high court challenge to a variety of recent state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants, an issue that has become a political lightning rod.

The outcome could serve as a judicial warmup for a separate high-profile challenge to a more controversial Arizona immigration reform law working its way through lower courts. That statute would, among other things, give local police a greater role in arresting suspected illegal immigrants.

The hiring case turned on whether state law tramples on federal authority.

“Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “It relies solely on the federal government’s own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government’s own system for checking employee status.”

Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007, allowing the state to suspend the licenses of businesses that “intentionally or knowingly” violate work-eligibility verification requirements. Companies would be required under that law to use E-Verify, a federal database to check the documentation of current and prospective employees. That database had been created by Congress as a voluntary, discretionary resource.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that federal law prohibits Arizona and other states from making E-Verify use mandatory. The group was supported by a variety of civil rights and immigration rights groups. The state countered that its broad licensing authority gives it the right to monitor businesses within its jurisdiction.

The Obama administration recommended a judicial review and sided with businesses and civil rights groups.

A 1986 federal act significantly limited state power to separately regulate the hiring and employment of “unauthorized” workers. An exception was made for local “licensing and similar laws.” Under the law, employees are required to review documentation to confirm someone’s right to work in the United States, including checking the familiar I-9 immigration form. Civil and criminal penalties were strengthened, but businesses making a “good faith” effort to comply with I-9 procedures were generally immune from prosecution.

Roberts, backed by his four conservative colleagues, said, “Arizona went the extra mile in ensuring that its law tracks (the federal law’s) provisions in all material aspects.”

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted E-Verify is a voluntary program and said criticism that the federal government is not doing enough to enforce the law is irrelevant.

“Permitting states to make use of E-Verify mandatory improperly puts states in the position of making decisions … that directly affect expenditure and depletion of federal resources,” she wrote. Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented.

Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case, since she had been the administration’s solicitor general last year when the case was being appealed to the high court.

Gov. Jan Brewer had backed the law, saying in December when the case was argued, “The bottom line is that we believe that if the (federal) government isn’t going to do the job, then Arizona is going to do the job. We are faced with a crisis.”

This case could serve as a bellwether to how the court will view a larger, more controversial state immigration law from Arizona. Much of that statute was tossed out by a federal judge in August and is pending at a federal appeals court. It would, among other things, give police authority to check a person’s immigration status if officers have a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is in the country illegally.

The hiring case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (09-115).

News Analysis: Obama Launches Immigration Reform Effort, But Lines Are Already Being Drawn « Feet In 2 Worlds, Immigration News.

So what was the result of President Obama’s meeting with lawmakers on Thursday, June 25?  On the table was the topic of immigration reform.  Obama’s goal was to get both sides talking about the issues.  On what did they agree and on what did they disagree?  And is immigration reform truly a possibility during the current administration, when so many other issues (finance, healthcare, Iraq/Afghanistan, Iran/N. Korea) are still unresolved?

The renewed commitment from the Oval Office might allay advocates’ fears that the current economic crisis, as well as Obama’s high-profile efforts to enact health care reform would prevent the President and Congress from dealing with immigration this year.

Obama continued to push for a “large-scale legalization program” that would basically provide amnesty and forgiveness to about 11 million undocumented immigrants.  What is more uncertain is what to do about future immigrants.  The thorniest issue here involves expansion of the current low-skill guest worker program, which US businesses say is too small, but organized labor unions say is already too large.  The same line of reasoning goes for the current H1-B program for highly-skilled workers.

Politically speaking,  the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the economy.  Despite arguments from immigration reform advocates that large-scale reform will actually bring economic benefits, members of Congress have so far proven skittish about taking on such a heated issue in the midst of the recession.