Illegal Immigrants: Go After the Employer.....

[EL PRESIDENTE]

or maybe DON'T? I thought that's what the "alternative" was to going after illegals directly?

Administration seeks employer sanctions review

By PETE YOST (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to decide whether federal immigration law trumps Arizona's attempt to punish businesses that employ illegal immigrants.

The solicitor general's office in the Justice Department says an Arizona law on employer sanctions disrupts a careful legal balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago.

Lower courts have said that the Arizona law is not pre-empted by the federal law. The Obama administration says that should be reversed.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You know, for the former Editor of the Harvard Law Review, I'm a bit disappointed in a lot of the times it seems the following occurs for the President:

(Law A passed/enforced)
President: blah blah Hope Change Transparency -- You can't do that! --- hope change blah blah.
Passer/Enforcer: Uh, actually we can. The Supreme Court has ruled/will rule on it being constitutional. OR, it's been a federal law for X years.
President: Oh. Um. We should reverse it.

 

[barfo]

You know, for the former Editor of the Harvard Law Review, I'm a bit disappointed in a lot of the times it seems the following occurs for the President:

(Law A passed/enforced)
President: blah blah Hope Change Transparency -- You can't do that! --- hope change blah blah.

Of course, it wasn't the President who said anything about this case, it was the acting solicitor general. Who works for Obama, but is not literally Obama.

Passer/Enforcer: Uh, actually we can. The Supreme Court has ruled/will rule on it being constitutional. OR, it's been a federal law for X years.

But in fact the supreme court has not ruled on it - this story is about the administration asking the supreme court to rule on it. And it conflicts with federal law, that's the basis of the objection from the adminstration.

Edit: actually, the snippet in the original post is misleading. The administration isn't actually the plaintiff in this case, the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations brought the suit. The administration was asked by the court to weigh in on it.

President: Oh. Um. We should reverse it.

You seem to be presuming the conclusion that the supreme court will uphold the AZ law. What happens to your argument if they don't?

barfo

 

[Ed O]

It's funny that a standard/popular criticism of the AZ law is that it DOESN'T target employers...

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

It's funny that a standard/popular criticism of the AZ law is that it DOESN'T target employers...

Ed O.

This is a different AZ law.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

I know you're all waiting for me to weigh in and decide this issue so you can go home, but first I will need to know--What is the "careful legal balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago"?

 

[barfo]

I know you're all waiting for me to weigh in and decide this issue so you can go home, but first I will need to know--What is the "careful legal balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago"?

That'd be the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, I believe.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Illegal aliens, and employers who illegally employ illegal aliens, should ALL be prosecuted and punished.

It ain't rocket science, and the word ILLEGAL should be a dead giveaway here even for the slow-witted folks.