Georgia passes immigration bill similar to Arizona's
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
*
Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico are EVERYWHERE.
*
THESE FIGURES ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ARE DATED. IT NOT EXCEEDS $600 MILLION PER YEAR!!! (source: Los Angeles County & JUDICIAL WATCH)
*
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts
*
LOS ANGELES – A MEXICAN WELFARE AND CRIME STATE WHERE THE JOBS ALSO GO TO ILLEGALS
http://mex¬icanoccupa¬tion.blogs¬pot.com/20¬11/04/mexi¬can-welfar¬e-state-in¬-los-angel¬es.html
*
THE REASON WHY OBAMA WORKS FOR OPEN BORDERS IS NOT ONLY TO BUY THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES, BUT TO KEEP HIS CORPORATE PAYMASTERS HAPPY AND GENEROUS WITH DEPRESSED WAGES!
THERE IS A REASON WHY THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE DEMANDS OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY, AMNESTY, AND HORDES MORE ILLEGALS…. TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED!
*
Critics from the farm lobby said E-Verify was not totally accurate, and put employers at risk of lawsuits if they erroneously denied a legal resident a job. The bill's supporters characterized that as overblown rhetoric from an industry addicted to cheap labor.
*
Georgia passes immigration bill similar to Arizona's
Police would be given the power to check the immigration status of 'criminal' suspects and many businesses would be required to do the same with potential hires.
By Richard Fausset, Los Angeles Times
10:13 PM PDT, April 14, 2011
Reporting from Atlanta
Following Arizona's lead, the Georgia Legislature on Thursday passed a strict measure that would empower police to check the immigration status of "criminal" suspects and force many businesses to do the same with potential employees.
The bill passed in the waning hours of the legislative session despite critics' outcries. Immigrant advocates threatened a state boycott if it became law, and Georgia's powerful agricultural industry warned, among other things, that federal guest worker programs alone could not provide enough laborers to meet farmers' needs.
Now the measure heads to the desk of Republican Gov. Nathan Deal, who campaigned last year on the promise of implementing an Arizona-style law in a state with, according to one 2009 estimate, 480,000 illegal immigrants — about 20,000 more than Arizona.
Since his election, however, Deal has warned that immigration laws should not place an "undue burden" on employers, raising concerns among foes of illegal immigration that he was wobbling.
A Deal spokesman declined to comment late Thursday on the governor's plans for the bill.
Whether or not it is enacted, Georgia's legislation underscores the increasingly disparate strategies that states are invoking in lieu of a comprehensive federal plan to deal with illegal immigration.
On Monday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's order striking down parts of the controversial Arizona law, known as SB 1070, which was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last year. Among the rejected sections was a provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they lawfully stop whom they also suspect to be illegal immigrants.
Some states, including Florida, are considering significant immigration bills, but others, including Nebraska and Colorado, have rejected such bills recently. Utah passed immigration-control legislation last month but softened its effects by also passing a law that creates "guest worker" ID cards for undocumented immigrants.
And just this week, Maryland's General Assembly passed a bill that would grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants (as California does). Maryland's governor was expected to sign it. Georgia is one of several states that denies in-state tuition to illegal immigrant residents.
In a provision with rough similarities to the most contentious part of the Arizona law, the Georgia bill gives police the authority to check a suspect's immigration status if the suspect is unable to produce a valid ID and if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a "criminal offense." If the person is verified as an illegal immigrant, police can detain that person or notify federal authorities.
Charles Kuck, a prominent Atlanta immigration attorney, said the way the bill is written, "criminal offenses" could be as minor as traffic violations.
Kuck, a Republican and outspoken critic of the legislation, said there was some question as to whether this provision gave police any more power than they already have. But the bigger problem, he said, was with "the message that it sends — this bill says, 'Immigrants, do not come to Georgia.... You're gonna have to show us your papers when you come.' "
He scoffed at another section prohibiting police from considering "race, color or national origin" when enforcing the bill.
"Let me ask you a question," Kuck said. "Do you think any white people are going be taken in for an immigration background check if they forgot their wallet at home?"
Among other things, the bill outlaws the use of fake IDs to secure employment and the transporting or harboring of illegal immigrants while knowingly committing another crime.
The biggest sticking point proved to be the provision that all but the smallest companies use the federal system called E-Verify to check the immigration status of new hires.
Critics from the farm lobby said E-Verify was not totally accurate, and put employers at risk of lawsuits if they erroneously denied a legal resident a job. The bill's supporters characterized that as overblown rhetoric from an industry addicted to cheap labor.
An earlier Arizona law, passed in 2007, requires all employers to use E-Verify and dissolves businesses that repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. That law, too, has been challenged on grounds that it usurps federal authority. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in December.
If Georgia's bill becomes law, it too is likely to wind up in court. But Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, said its fate may hinge on whether Arizona's laws pass constitutional muster.
But for the time being, fans of the Georgia bill were heartened by their achievement Thursday.
"We're a law-abiding state," said state Sen. Earl "Buddy" Carter, a Republican from Pooler. "And we want people to abide by the laws."
*
Obama Administration Challenges Arizona E-Verify Law
The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to strike down a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who hire illegal aliens, a law enacted by then-Governor Janet Napolitano. (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief). Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify and provides that the business licenses of those who hire illegal workers shall be repealed. From the date of enactment, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups have been trying to undo it, attacking it through a failed ballot initiative and also through a lawsuit. Now the Chamber is asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), and the Obama Administration is weighing in against the law.
To date, Arizona’s E-Verify law has been upheld by all lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, viewed it as an exercise of a state’s traditional power to regulate businesses. (San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 2010). Obama’s Justice Department, however, disagrees. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in his filing with the Supreme Court that the lower courts were wrong to uphold the statute because federal immigration law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants. Mr. Katyal argues that this is not a licensing law, but “a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate sanction.” (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief, p. 10). This is the administration’s first court challenge to a state’s authority to act against illegal immigration, and could be a preview of the battle brewing over Arizona’s recent illegal immigration crackdown through SB 1070.
Napolitano has made no comment on the Department of Justice’s decision to challenge the 2007 law, but federal officials said that she has taken an active part in the debate over whether to do so. (Politico, May 28, 2010). As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano said she believed the state law was valid and became a defendant in the many lawsuits against it. (Id.).
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
*
Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico are EVERYWHERE.
*
THESE FIGURES ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ARE DATED. IT NOT EXCEEDS $600 MILLION PER YEAR!!! (source: Los Angeles County & JUDICIAL WATCH)
*
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts
*
LOS ANGELES – A MEXICAN WELFARE AND CRIME STATE WHERE THE JOBS ALSO GO TO ILLEGALS
http://mex¬icanoccupa¬tion.blogs¬pot.com/20¬11/04/mexi¬can-welfar¬e-state-in¬-los-angel¬es.html
*
THE REASON WHY OBAMA WORKS FOR OPEN BORDERS IS NOT ONLY TO BUY THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES, BUT TO KEEP HIS CORPORATE PAYMASTERS HAPPY AND GENEROUS WITH DEPRESSED WAGES!
THERE IS A REASON WHY THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE DEMANDS OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY, AMNESTY, AND HORDES MORE ILLEGALS…. TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED!
*
Critics from the farm lobby said E-Verify was not totally accurate, and put employers at risk of lawsuits if they erroneously denied a legal resident a job. The bill's supporters characterized that as overblown rhetoric from an industry addicted to cheap labor.
*
Georgia passes immigration bill similar to Arizona's
Police would be given the power to check the immigration status of 'criminal' suspects and many businesses would be required to do the same with potential hires.
By Richard Fausset, Los Angeles Times
10:13 PM PDT, April 14, 2011
Reporting from Atlanta
Following Arizona's lead, the Georgia Legislature on Thursday passed a strict measure that would empower police to check the immigration status of "criminal" suspects and force many businesses to do the same with potential employees.
The bill passed in the waning hours of the legislative session despite critics' outcries. Immigrant advocates threatened a state boycott if it became law, and Georgia's powerful agricultural industry warned, among other things, that federal guest worker programs alone could not provide enough laborers to meet farmers' needs.
Now the measure heads to the desk of Republican Gov. Nathan Deal, who campaigned last year on the promise of implementing an Arizona-style law in a state with, according to one 2009 estimate, 480,000 illegal immigrants — about 20,000 more than Arizona.
Since his election, however, Deal has warned that immigration laws should not place an "undue burden" on employers, raising concerns among foes of illegal immigration that he was wobbling.
A Deal spokesman declined to comment late Thursday on the governor's plans for the bill.
Whether or not it is enacted, Georgia's legislation underscores the increasingly disparate strategies that states are invoking in lieu of a comprehensive federal plan to deal with illegal immigration.
On Monday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's order striking down parts of the controversial Arizona law, known as SB 1070, which was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last year. Among the rejected sections was a provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they lawfully stop whom they also suspect to be illegal immigrants.
Some states, including Florida, are considering significant immigration bills, but others, including Nebraska and Colorado, have rejected such bills recently. Utah passed immigration-control legislation last month but softened its effects by also passing a law that creates "guest worker" ID cards for undocumented immigrants.
And just this week, Maryland's General Assembly passed a bill that would grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants (as California does). Maryland's governor was expected to sign it. Georgia is one of several states that denies in-state tuition to illegal immigrant residents.
In a provision with rough similarities to the most contentious part of the Arizona law, the Georgia bill gives police the authority to check a suspect's immigration status if the suspect is unable to produce a valid ID and if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a "criminal offense." If the person is verified as an illegal immigrant, police can detain that person or notify federal authorities.
Charles Kuck, a prominent Atlanta immigration attorney, said the way the bill is written, "criminal offenses" could be as minor as traffic violations.
Kuck, a Republican and outspoken critic of the legislation, said there was some question as to whether this provision gave police any more power than they already have. But the bigger problem, he said, was with "the message that it sends — this bill says, 'Immigrants, do not come to Georgia.... You're gonna have to show us your papers when you come.' "
He scoffed at another section prohibiting police from considering "race, color or national origin" when enforcing the bill.
"Let me ask you a question," Kuck said. "Do you think any white people are going be taken in for an immigration background check if they forgot their wallet at home?"
Among other things, the bill outlaws the use of fake IDs to secure employment and the transporting or harboring of illegal immigrants while knowingly committing another crime.
The biggest sticking point proved to be the provision that all but the smallest companies use the federal system called E-Verify to check the immigration status of new hires.
Critics from the farm lobby said E-Verify was not totally accurate, and put employers at risk of lawsuits if they erroneously denied a legal resident a job. The bill's supporters characterized that as overblown rhetoric from an industry addicted to cheap labor.
An earlier Arizona law, passed in 2007, requires all employers to use E-Verify and dissolves businesses that repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. That law, too, has been challenged on grounds that it usurps federal authority. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in December.
If Georgia's bill becomes law, it too is likely to wind up in court. But Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, said its fate may hinge on whether Arizona's laws pass constitutional muster.
But for the time being, fans of the Georgia bill were heartened by their achievement Thursday.
"We're a law-abiding state," said state Sen. Earl "Buddy" Carter, a Republican from Pooler. "And we want people to abide by the laws."
*
Obama Administration Challenges Arizona E-Verify Law
The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to strike down a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who hire illegal aliens, a law enacted by then-Governor Janet Napolitano. (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief). Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify and provides that the business licenses of those who hire illegal workers shall be repealed. From the date of enactment, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups have been trying to undo it, attacking it through a failed ballot initiative and also through a lawsuit. Now the Chamber is asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), and the Obama Administration is weighing in against the law.
To date, Arizona’s E-Verify law has been upheld by all lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, viewed it as an exercise of a state’s traditional power to regulate businesses. (San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 2010). Obama’s Justice Department, however, disagrees. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in his filing with the Supreme Court that the lower courts were wrong to uphold the statute because federal immigration law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants. Mr. Katyal argues that this is not a licensing law, but “a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate sanction.” (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief, p. 10). This is the administration’s first court challenge to a state’s authority to act against illegal immigration, and could be a preview of the battle brewing over Arizona’s recent illegal immigration crackdown through SB 1070.
Napolitano has made no comment on the Department of Justice’s decision to challenge the 2007 law, but federal officials said that she has taken an active part in the debate over whether to do so. (Politico, May 28, 2010). As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano said she believed the state law was valid and became a defendant in the many lawsuits against it. (Id.).
No comments:
Post a Comment