Supreme Court says Arizona can check immigration status

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting has been decided in favor of Arizona’s requirement that employers check immigration status. 5-3, Kagan sitting out. Breyer & Ginsburg dissent together, Sotamayor dissents solo.

The Chief Justice’s opinion explains that the licensing provision falls squarely within a savings clause in federal immigration law and that the Arizona statute does not otherwise conflict with federal law.

Cries of racism in 3, 2, 1…. Also, expect the clause – which will be called a loophole in media coverage – to be altered or closed via new legislation…no, wait. By executive order. Because that’s how we do things now.

Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT

    Can some leftard explain to me why it is racist to want to check/curb illegal immigration, so we can have more legal immigration allowed, protecting the people that actually bother to do things right instead of breaking the law, please? Or is it that the left is only enamored of those that feel the law should only apply to those other stupid people that want to do the right thing? Kind of like they do with every other policy they push.

    Score a win for those of us that can’t stand the fact so many want to reward the cheaters and law breakers instead of the people doing the right thing.

    Thumb up 1

  2. richtaylor365

    Can some leftard explain to me why it is racist to want to check/curb illegal immigration

    Because it will lead to profiling, or so the argument goes. If a job applicant is black or Asian looking, or the Nordic Swede type, no inquiry will be made as to resident legal status, but if he looks Hispanic then bam, “Show me your papers”.

    I personally think it is a red hearing but that is argument put forth.

    Thumb up 2

  3. AlexInCT

    Because it will lead to profiling, or so the argument goes. If a job applicant is black or Asian looking, or the Nordic Swede type, no inquiry will be made as to resident legal status, but if he looks Hispanic then bam, “Show me your papers”.

    Well I am all for them asking for papers from people that speak Frog or use the words “Eh!” or “Hoser” a lot too. Fair is fair. I had to provide proof of citizenship/resiency to all my employers, some even wanted a secuirty background check in addition to the usual peeing in a cup. Are they profiling me?

    Thumb up 0

  4. richtaylor365

    Are they profiling me?

    The point they are attempting to make is that in America everyone should be treated the same, no discrimination and no special treatment. If you as a white man (I’m assuming) have to do A,B and C, then to make Julio do A,B,C, and D is not equitable.

    Now if everyone has to show proof of citizenship then this would not be a separate hoop for Hispanics to jump through and the profiling argument would not be valid, but is that the case?

    Thumb up 0

  5. JimK *

    The AZ law requires employers to make a digital check with a federal database for all employees hired, and also adds fines for businesses that 1. don’t do it and 2. are caught hiring illegals.

    They aren’t – as far as I can see – singling out “brown people.” Obviously Mexican illegals are the biggest demographic of illegal immigrants in AZ, but as far as I can tell, the law is designed specifically to avoid singling out any one group. Could be Canadian for all the law cares.

    IANAL, but it reads fairly (again, as far as I can see without reading the whole statute and attending law school!)

    Thumb up 0

  6. Rann

    For every single job I’ve ever applied for, I’ve always been asked whether I could provide proof that I was either a US citizen or had proof that I was in the US legally and was legally licensed to work there. Every single job, without fail, and I’m good old palefaced brown-haired American mutt. They never dug me a special form out of the Mighty Whitey Applicants file that didn’t have that question on it.

    It sounds like all this law will do is force employers to actually follow up on that instead of just taking your word for it. And yeah, if they check everyone, the only real recourse there for the illegals advocacy groups is what I’ve come to think of as the Carrey Courtroom Objection.

    “Your honor I object!”
    “On what grounds?”
    “It makes my case look really really bad!”

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    Sorry I can’t help you Alex as I agree with you guys. Makes sense to be able to check for legal status. If you’re going to have rules (for good reason) then you should be able to enforce them. I’m always surprised and confused by people who think it’s unfair. If you’re not meant to be there, why on earth should you expect to be treated the same as people that have spent time and money going through the system, doing it properly?

    Thumb up 2

  8. Kimpost

    While it’s tempting to cry racism here, just to spite you, ;) I’m having a hard time seeing it. As far as I understand the law mandates checking everyone, which should take care of that aspect of it. And on a personal level, I have no objections either.

    I haven’t read the dissent yet, so I can’t see if anything reasonable is being said there, and on what grounds. But as a talking point. Could it be deemed unconstitutional to demand these kinds of background checks by law? Sort of like I’ve seen some people objecting to a national ID mandate on constitutional grounds. Applying that logic to this could lead to something in the lines of: “Americans should not have to suffer background checks by mandate, just to apply for work.”

    Another possible constitutional objection could be that this might seem like a state overstepping its constitutional powers. “Border security is a federal issue, don’t even get close to the area..”

    Thumb up 0

  9. CM

    Sorry but I’m always reasonable and I usually make sense ;-)

    Where I might have an issue with the treatment of people who are in a country illegally, or who are not qualified to work, is in their treatment once they’ve been detected. They should certainly be treated like humans. They haven’t killed or raped anyone (yet!).
    I’m not suggesting that you guys believe anything different, just wanted to make that point.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Hal_10000

    The real issue with Arizona’s law is federalism — that immigration is a federal concern (as state explicitly in the Constitution). The SCOTUS decision was interesting in that it was very narrow. They said that because licensing businesses is a state issues, the state could act here. I don’t have a problem with this law either.

    Thumb up 0

  11. Seattle Outcast

    I’ll bet Seattle has more illegal Canadians working here than Mexicans. Of course, the Mexicans are all hanging out at Home Depot looking for work, while the Canadians are working for tips at bars and cafe’s and bitching about the lack of “free” health care. Another thing – Canadians generally don’t think that they should be subject to our immigration laws, and that, despite identifying themselves as most certainly NOT being Americans, the border should be wide open for Canadians but not Americans.

    Had a conversation with a Canadian coworker a few years back that was bitching and moaning about her $20 doctor co-pay and the “high price of prescriptions”. Never mind that she was getting better care than she’d ever get in Canada, and that she only had a $10 co-pay on prescriptions – it was that some insurance company was getting rich off of her when, “obviously”, “free” health care was a “right.” Told her that she could always move back to Vancouver if living in the US was too much of a hassle.

    Oddly enough, the conversation ended at that point.

    Thumb up 0