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).

Latest Ariz. immigration bills have tougher path – Yahoo! News.

PHOENIX – Fatigue with the illegal immigration issue could stand in the way of new legislation being considered by Arizona lawmakers, including a sweeping bill championed by the same senator whose law last year prompted nationwide protests.

The many provisions of Senate President Russell Pearce’s latest bill target education and other public services as well as activities ranging from hiring to driving.

Pearce’s late-emerging bill and other proposals sponsored by fellow Republicans cleared a Senate committee dominated by conservatives late Tuesday. But two committee Republicans voted against Pearce’s bill, and a GOP senator who’s not on the committee said Wednesday that full Senate votes on the measures will be close.

Minority Democrats regularly vote against most Republican hard-liners’ illegal immigration bills, “and there are other Republicans besides me that have concerns with them,” said Sen. John McComish of Phoenix. “We need a timeout on immigration bills.”

Pearce drafted his bill Friday and introduced it Monday, past the normal deadline.

“This was a very quick fix (at the) last minute to make sure that we did not ignore the voters of this state,” he said, referring to provisions that would tighten illegal immigration laws approved by voters in the last decade.

However, Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said, “This bill is miles beyond SB1070 in terms of its potential to roll back the rights and fundamental freedoms of both citizens and non-citizens alike.”

Opponents also said fallout would damage the state’s economy just as businesses are poised to regain lost ground. Passage of SB1070 last year touched off calls for boycotts and a national debate on whether states can enforce federal immigration laws. Key portions of the law have been put on hold by a court pending outcome of legal challenges.

The Senate Appropriations Committee that narrowly endorsed Pearce’s latest bill on a 7-6 vote also approved others targeting automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants and requiring hospitals to report patients who cannot show they’re in the country legally.

The measures now face a legal review and discussions by party caucuses before being considered by the full Senate. Passage would send them to the House.

Two committee Republicans joined four Democrats in voting against Pearce’s bill.

It would make it a state crime with a 30-day minimum jail sentence to drive a vehicle while in the country illegally, and Republican Rick Crandall of Mesa said a provision allowing forfeiture of vehicles driven by illegal immigrants could prompt car rental companies to demand proof of legal status from tourists and other visitors.

“It’s the type of thing that completely undoes” a recently unveiled campaign to promote the state’s tourism industry, Crandall said.

The measure allows for business licenses to be suspended if an employer doesn’t use the federal E-Verify system to check the work eligibility of new hires. Workers caught using a false identity to get a job would face mandatory six-month jail sentences.

It also requires schools to collect information on the legal status of students and report them to law enforcement if their parents don’t provide the necessary documents or the documents appear false.

Public universities and community colleges would be barred from admitting students who cannot demonstrate legal status.

In housing, the bill requires public agencies to verify the immigration status of renters and to evict everyone living in a unit if one is found to be an illegal immigrant. For health care, the bill changes some of the document requirements for the state’s Medicaid program.

The bill turns public officials into immigration officers and “launches an unprecedented attack on minorities and people of color,” said Jaime Farrant of the Border Action Network, an advisory group.

But the Appropriations Committee chairman, Republican Sen. Andy Biggs, said the bill was a response “to economic and social costs that we face with the onslaught of illegal aliens in our state.”

“We need to have the moral courage to deal with this issue when there is a vacuum at the federal level,” he said.

Democrats said Republicans should be focused on the state’s ailing economy, not taking steps that would hurt it.

“This is totally the wrong time for the leader of our Senate to throw our state into another state of chaos,” said Democratic Sen. Paula Aboud of Tucson.

Sponsors of the automatic citizenship bill hope it will prompt a court interpretation on an element of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to people born in the country and who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

Bill proponents said the amendment shouldn’t apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don’t owe sole allegiance to the U.S.

The committee also approved an accompanying proposal that would establish an interstate compact that defines who is a U.S. citizen and asks states to issue separate birth certificates for those who are citizens and those who are designated as not citizens.

Similar proposals defining who would get automatic citizenship have been introduced in Indiana, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma and South Dakota. Backers expect another dozen states will take up the issue this year.

The other bill originally barred nonemergency treatment without proof of legal status but was amended to only require hospitals to report patients who lack valid health insurance and who cannot show they’re in the country legally.

Supporters said it still would help reduce health care costs and burdens on taxpayers. Critics said it could deter some people from seeking needed care.

Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law : NPR.

October 28, 2010

Last year, two men showed up in Benson, Ariz., a small desert town 60 miles from the Mexico border, offering a deal.

Glenn Nichols, the Benson city manager, remembers the pitch.

“The gentleman that’s the main thrust of this thing has a huge turquoise ring on his finger,” Nichols said. “He’s a great big huge guy and I equated him to a car salesman.”

What he was selling was a prison for women and children who were illegal immigrants.

“They talk [about] how positive this was going to be for the community,” Nichols said, “the amount of money that we would realize from each prisoner on a daily rate.”

But Nichols wasn’t buying. He asked them how would they possibly keep a prison full for years — decades even — with illegal immigrants?

Laura Sullivan/NPRGlenn Nichols, city manager of Benson, Ariz., says two men came to the city last year “talking about building a facility to hold women and children that were illegals.”

“They talked like they didn’t have any doubt they could fill it,” Nichols said.

That’s because prison companies like this one had a plan — a new business model to lock up illegal immigrants. And the plan became Arizona’s immigration law.

Behind-The-Scenes Effort To Draft, Pass The Law

The law is being challenged in the courts. But if it’s upheld, it requires police to lock up anyone they stop who cannot show proof they entered the country legally.

When it was passed in April, it ignited a fire storm. Protesters chanted about racial profiling. Businesses threatened to boycott the state.

Supporters were equally passionate, calling it a bold positive step to curb illegal immigration.

But while the debate raged, few people were aware of how the law came about.

NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.

The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it’s not about prisons. It’s about what’s best for the country.

“Enough is enough,” Pearce said in his office, sitting under a banner reading “Let Freedom Reign.” “People need to focus on the cost of not enforcing our laws and securing our border. It is the Trojan horse destroying our country and a republic cannot survive as a lawless nation.”

But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.

Enlarge Joshua Lott/Getty ImagesArizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state’s immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state’s immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.

It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.

It’s a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.

It was there that Pearce’s idea took shape.

“I did a presentation,” Pearce said. “I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, ‘Yeah.’”

Drafting The Bill

The 50 or so people in the room included officials of the Corrections Corporation of America, according to two sources who were there.

Pearce and the Corrections Corporation of America have been coming to these meetings for years. Both have seats on one of several of ALEC’s boards.

Key Players That Helped Draft Arizona’s Immigration Law

Source: NPR News Investigations

Credit: Stephanie D’Otreppe/NPR

And this bill was an important one for the company. According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market. Last year, they wrote that they expect to bring in “a significant portion of our revenues” from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that detains illegal immigrants.

In the conference room, the group decided they would turn the immigration idea into a model bill. They discussed and debated language. Then, they voted on it.

“There were no ‘no’ votes,” Pearce said. “I never had one person speak up in objection to this model legislation.”

Four months later, that model legislation became, almost word for word, Arizona’s immigration law.

They even named it. They called it the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”

“ALEC is the conservative, free-market orientated, limited-government group,” said Michael Hough, who was staff director of the meeting.

Hough works for ALEC, but he’s also running for state delegate in Maryland, and if elected says he plans to support a similar bill to Arizona’s law.

Asked if the private companies usually get to write model bills for the legislators, Hough said, “Yeah, that’s the way it’s set up. It’s a public-private partnership. We believe both sides, businesses and lawmakers should be at the same table, together.”

Nothing about this is illegal. Pearce’s immigration plan became a prospective bill and Pearce took it home to Arizona.

Campaign Donations

Pearce said he is not concerned that it could appear private prison companies have an opportunity to lobby for legislation at the ALEC meetings.

“I don’t go there to meet with them,” he said. “I go there to meet with other legislators.”

Pearce may go there to meet with other legislators, but 200 private companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet with legislators like him.

As soon as Pearce’s bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC’s influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol.  According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members.

That same week, the Corrections Corporation of America hired a powerful new lobbyist to work the capitol.

The prison company declined requests for an interview. In a statement, a spokesman said the Corrections Corporation of America, “unequivocally has not at any time lobbied — nor have we had any outside consultants lobby – on immigration law.”

At the state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear.

Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.

By April, the bill was on Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk.

Brewer has her own connections to private prison companies. State lobbying records show two of her top advisers — her spokesman Paul Senseman and her campaign manager Chuck Coughlin — are former lobbyists for private prison companies. Brewer signed the bill — with the name of the legislation Pearce, the Corrections Corporation of America and the others in the Hyatt conference room came up with — in four days.

Brewer and her spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

In May, The Geo Group had a conference call with investors. When asked about the bill, company executives made light of it, asking, “Did they have some legislation on immigration?”

After company officials laughed, the company’s president, Wayne Calabrese, cut in.

“This is Wayne,” he said. “I can only believe the opportunities at the federal level are going to continue apace as a result of what’s happening. Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained and that for me, at least I think, there’s going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do.”

Opportunities that prison companies helped create.

Produced by NPR’s Anne Hawke.

The controversial Arizona Immigration Law is responsible for driving out an exodus of undocumented families, in fear of criminal punishment. Many of the illegal immigrants are moving to other parts of the United States, while a few others are even returning back to Mexico.

The alleged Senate Bill 1070 has started fulfilling its goal of “attrition through enforcement” though it has not come into force yet. Many policy makers see the Arizona Immigration Law merely as a measure of distributing Arizona’s problems to other states. One solution to this problem would be to create a broader immigration reform that tackles the border breakdown issue as well.

While expressing his concerns over the immigration-law exodus, the U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., senior member of the state’s U.S. House delegation, stated that the President of the United States should immediately step into action, else there would be similar immigration reforms from every state of the United States. He expressed this on quoting the comments by Sen. Russell Pearce who stated that when other states begin passing their own immigration reforms, the President would be under immense pressure.
According to the Arizona Immigration Law, it is a criminal offense to be an undocumented immigrant in the country. It also entitles law officials to question whoever they suspect as illegal residents. This section of the law has raised alarms among many families, eventually leading them to flee the state. There are also a few others who wait for favorable amendments to be made in the law.

Many feel that this immigration reform by Arizona is an extreme measure taken up by the Arizona State Government.

Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, fears that the Arizona Immigration Law might become the American style ethnic cleansing that will terrorize all undocumented family members and drive them out of the state.

The Obama administration officials had recently stated their intent of filing a suit against the Arizona immigration law as a measure to mitigate the negative effects of the law. Though the officials had proclaimed this decision long back, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State had affirmed it on an interview with a TV station in Ecuador.

According to Clinton, President Obama has expressed his disapproval of the Arizona law because he feels that the federal government is the right authority to determine an immigration policy. She had also said that a lawsuit would be filed by the Justice Department against the law. She further added that, President Obama’s main motive is to bring a comprehensive immigration reform.

Jan Brewer, Arizona governor who passed the illegal immigrant law, retaliated against Clinton’s announcement and said that she was ready to put up a fight.

In accordance with Clinton’s announcement, the Justice Department recently filed suit against the Arizona immigration law, which is scheduled to be effective from the end of July. The suit requests the U.S. District Court in Arizona to bar the state from putting the law into effect. The state of Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer were named as defendants in the suit. The reason stated in the suit filed was that Arizona immigration law disrupted the authority that the federal government has on immigration enforcement.

The law suit claims that the Arizona immigration law aims at removing illegal immigrants, but is unmindful of the other immigration objectives. The suit also puts forth that according to the United States Constitution, Arizona cannot use its own state-specific immigration policy to replace the federal government’s immigration regime. And that this policy would only interfere with the federal governments responsibilities.

Attorney General Eric Holder also opined that this illegal immigrant law will affect the country’s safety as it would divert federal resources from other dangerous sources, such as terrorism suspects and individual with criminal records.

Arizona immigration law heads to court, with $1.2 million war chest – CSMonitor.com.

First of seven lawsuits against tough Arizona immigration law is heard Thursday in federal court in Phoenix. Money from private donors across the US has flowed into a defense fund for the statute.

By Lourdes Medrano, Contributor / July 15, 2010

Tucson, Ariz.

As Arizona heads to court Thursday to defend its tough new immigration law in the first of several legal challenges, it has the backing of many Americans who have opened their wallets to show support for the border state.

Contributions to Gov. Jan Brewer’s special legal defense fund now top $1 million, mostly in website donations of less than $100 pouring in from all over the country. Arizona, California, Texas, and Florida are the states with the most online donors.

As of Tuesday, website contributions totaled $1,104934.63 from 23,955 donors, according to the governor’s office. Additional mail-in donations totaled $93,084, with contributions still coming in, says Tasya Peterson, a Brewer spokeswoman. The average donation is about $46.

The Republican governor set up the fund by executive order in late May to help the state defend its right to enforce the law, which requires local and state authorities to determine the status of suspects they believe to be in the country illegally. The law, which the governor signed in April, has spawned economic boycotts and seven lawsuits – including one by the US Department of Justice filed July 6 – that seek to stop law, known locally as Senate Bill 1070, from going into effect July 29.

The financial contributions surged after the Obama administration its suit, reflecting opinion polls that show strong support for Arizona. In a Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll released Monday, 51 percent of Americans favor the state’s immigration law. Thirty four percent support the federal government’s case against the state.

Phoenix resident Carlie Murphy, a retiree who has lived in Arizona for five years, says she contributed $20 because the state is trying to address what the federal government has neglected. “Our federal government has not fulfilled its responsibility for a long, long time when it comes to illegal immigration.”

Jeanne Kurucz and her husband, Andrew, of Garden Grove, Calif., donated $25 because they don’t think the federal government should be suing Arizona. “We stand behind Jan Brewer and we think that the government should close the borders,” Ms. Kurucz says.

Brewer and her backers say Arizona had to act because the federal government has failed to secure the border, but critics say the law will encourage racial profiling and is unconstitutional because enforcing immigration laws is a federal duty, not a state responsibility.

It is difficult to accurately estimate how much legal costs will total, says Paul Senseman, Brewer’s communications director. “It depends on many variables including the outcome of the cases, possible appeals, if new cases are filed, if the federal government continues to sue the state, etc.”

Arizona’s defense rests in the hands of private lawyers. Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who opposes the law, withdrew from representing the state in court after continuing clashes with Brewer, a Republican. Both are running for governor.

Brewer hired Snell & Wilmer LLC, a corporate law firm based in Phoenix, to defend the state. Chairman John Bouma says attorneys are working long hours on behalf of the state. Adjusted hourly rates for the state’s primary attorneys vary from $225 to $450 per hour, according to the firm’s contract with the state.

Thursday’s lawsuit before US District Judge Susan Bolton was filed by Tucson police officer Martin Escobar. Various organizations, including immigrant-advocacy groups and the ACLU, filed subsequent legal challenges. The Justice Department suit contends that the law interferes with federal authority, and attorneys for both sides will argue that case before Judge Bolton on July 22.

Governor of Texas, Rick Perry issued a statement expressing concern over certain provisions in the Arizona immigration law. According to him, the tough immigration law would not be the right one for Texas. However, he chose to reserve his comment, when questioned if he would veto a similar legislation.

The Arizona law, that authorizes the local and state officers to question any person about their immigration status whom they suspect unlawful, has sparked uproar nationwide questioning its constitutionality. The law also states that if the immigrants do not possess the necessary documents to prove their status it would be registered as a crime of illegal immigration under the Arizona state law. It means that they were liable to serve a jail term of up to six months along with a fine.

Taking all this into account, Perry stated that some features of the Arizona immigration law would allow law enforcement officers to act as immigration officials. He felt that the act could divert the enforcement officers from their existing law enforcement duties necessary to keep the citizens safe, especially in a situation that requires questioning an unauthorized immigrant. Such events could only pose a serious threat to the society.

According to him, guarding the national borders should be a top priority. In his endeavor to keep the border secure, he had even requested for 1,000 National Guard troops to support civilian law enforcement efforts.

The Arizona law has reopened the debate over the US immigration reform. Supporters of the law feel that only such tough laws can assure the safety and security of U.S. citizens, especially when the federal government’s inability to guard the U.S’s border with the Mexico is taken into account. Whereas, critics believe that this law is biased and would only pose people with brown skin as suspects.

Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona has recently passed the state’s immigration bill into law. According to the Arizona immigration law, immigrants are required to carry their immigration documents with them all the time. The law authorizes police officers to demand suspected people for their alien registration documents, if they have even a slight suspicion about the individual. The Arizona’s law seems to be highly controversial and has raised a national debate among politicians, pundits, and citizens.

President Obama also expressed his disapproval to the Arizona immigration law, stating that this immigration law was “misguided” and could violate citizen’s civil rights. Further, he also said that the developments in the law would be monitored by the Justice Department.

At a naturalization ceremony that was held for 24 foreign-born U.S. military members, that Obama had first raised opposition to the Arizona immigration law. At the naturalization ceremony, President Obama had appealed to the fellow countrymen to opt for a different future and not the one that was envisaged through the Arizona immigration law.

Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security Secretary was also present at the Rose Garden event along with President Obama. Previously, during her two term tenure as Arizona’s democratic governor she had repetitively refused to permit similar bills. She justified her act, saying that those bills would have refrained law enforcement forces from protecting their nationals from serious threats.

Immigrant advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona are of the opinion that the Arizona immigration law might cultivate racial profiling, since they believe that most police officers do not have enough training to look beyond race while investigating the suspected person’s immigration status.

The Arizona immigration law has reignited the national immigration reform debate. President Obama has urged the federal government to take steps to reform the national immigration law and prevent irresponsibility by others.