• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is going to pissoff Obama and Holder, and I couldn't be happier about this.

This is good for America.


Supreme 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 aliens, 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.

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.
 
This is good news.
 
woot.gif
 
I have been ranting about this for years. They only way to curb illegal immigration is to take away their ability to make a living here. And you do that by fining or jailing employers who hire them. This has been a long time coming, but it is now here. The downside is that this is only in Arizona, which means that illegals there will come to Texas, or go to New Mexico or other states. Punishing employers who break the law needs to be done nationally.
 
This is going to pissoff Obama and Holder, and I couldn't be happier about this.

This is good for America.

Actually, it won't. The Supreme Court only gave the ruling on a single issue. Liberals, in my experience, tend to like the idea of punishing businesses for exploiting cheap labor.

The only real contention most liberal have with the law is that reasonable suspicion is the litmus test instead of probable cause. Indiana passed a similar bill, its litmus test is probably cause when checking for papers. The difference between the two laws is that reasonable suspicion is whatever a cop thinks, were probable cause actual has legal basis. Under reasonable suspicion, speaking Spanish would be grounds to trying to check for papers, or working in construction as a subcontractor maybe. Under probable cause, a crime would have to be committed and if the person doesn't present speak English very well while being unable to produce a drivers license would be trigger asking for paper. Basically, mores needed.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it won't. The Supreme Court only gave the ruling on a single issue. Liberals, in my experience, tend to like the idea of punishing businesses for exploiting cheap labor.

The only real contention most liberal have with the law is that reasonable suspicion is the litmus test instead of probable cause. Indiana passed a similar bill, its litmus test is probably cause when checking for papers. The difference between the two laws is that reasonable suspicion is whatever a cop thinks, were probable cause actual has legal basis. Under reasonable suspicion, speaking Spanish would be grounds to trying to check for papers, or working in construction as a subcontractor maybe. Under probable cause, a crime would have to be committed and if the person doesn't present speak English very well while being unable to produce a drivers license would be trigger asking for paper. Basically, mores needed.

Are you confusing Arizona SB1070 which has yet be presented to the SC, with the employer sanction law which the SC ruled in AZ favor.
 
Are you confusing Arizona SB1070 which has yet be presented to the SC, with the employer sanction law which the SC ruled in AZ favor.

No, although I thought the employer rules were in the same bill.
 
I have been ranting about this for years. They only way to curb illegal immigration is to take away their ability to make a living here. And you do that by fining or jailing employers who hire them. This has been a long time coming, but it is now here. The downside is that this is only in Arizona, which means that illegals there will come to Texas, or go to New Mexico or other states. Punishing employers who break the law needs to be done nationally.

Yeah but it paves the way for other states to punish employers who willingly employ illegal’s and it is a step forward for state’s rights to enforce immigration laws.
 
No, although I thought the employer rules were in the same bill.

This law was signed by the current head of Homeland Security and former AZ Governor, Janet Napolitano back in 2007.

I would give anything to see what her reaction was upon hearing this news now that she is an Obama puppet. I know how Holder and Obama reacted; they weren’t happy.

I’m checking home prices in AZ as we speak.
 
I suppose we will now see a lot of Conservatives screaming bloody murder at states blatantly engaging in unconstitutional union busting.
 
This law was signed by the current head of Homeland Security and former AZ Governor, Janet Napolitano back in 2007.

I would give anything to see what her reaction was upon hearing this news now that she is an Obama puppet. I know how Holder and Obama reacted; they weren’t happy.

I’m checking home prices in AZ as we speak.

You don't know how Obama reacted to this, because he didn't sue Arizona over this law. He sued over a different law that does overreach.

This law is fine.

NOTE: The federal law bans "criminal or civil sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ … authorized aliens."

In other words, the Arizona law takes away a license. It doesn't impose criminal or civil penalties (the latter half of that assertion is questionable, but is now law).

I can see why the Chamber is against this though. And I'm a little surprised that some "small-government" types celebrate this the way they do. This essentially says that entrepreneurship is a privilege to be granted and taken away by the state (and I agree it is). But you have to admit it's a huge government intrusion into business.

SB1070 is solely about government intrusion into individual liberty (i.e. - a cop can suspect anyone who looks "foreign" and request proof of citizenship, while this law requires proof of violation of law).
 
I suppose we will now see a lot of Conservatives screaming bloody murder at states blatantly engaging in unconstitutional union busting.

I have read the constitution and it doesn’t say anything about unions. How you jump to the conclusion you make is beyond me but that is for a different forum. This forum is about the SCOTUS ruling on an AZ law that has nothing to do with the unions.
 
You don't know how Obama reacted to this, because he didn't sue Arizona over this law. He sued over a different law that does overreach.

This law is fine.

NOTE: The federal law bans "criminal or civil sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ … authorized aliens."

In other words, the Arizona law takes away a license. It doesn't impose criminal or civil penalties (the latter half of that assertion is questionable, but is now law).

I can see why the Chamber is against this though. And I'm a little surprised that some "small-government" types celebrate this the way they do. This essentially says that entrepreneurship is a privilege to be granted and taken away by the state (and I agree it is). But you have to admit it's a huge government intrusion into business.

SB1070 is solely about government intrusion into individual liberty (i.e. - a cop can suspect anyone who looks "foreign" and request proof of citizenship, while this law requires proof of violation of law).

Obama is not happy with this ruling because it sets a precedent for state rights on enforcement of federal immigration law.

This is huge because it pulls the legs out from under the pro-terrorist groups who think we should have open borders so anyone can get into the USA without identification.

The sad thing is you want to give potential terrorists the right to drive, get a job, and do whatever they need to do once they get here illegally.
 
I have read the constitution and it doesn’t say anything about unions. How you jump to the conclusion you make is beyond me but that is for a different forum. This forum is about the SCOTUS ruling on an AZ law that has nothing to do with the unions.

Well I mentioned it mostly because conservatives like yourself seem to be so invested in 'protecting' the workers in their state while attacking the unions which represent so many of those workers. As far as your commentary on the Constitution goes, I'm not even sure what it has to do with anything. There are many rights not enumerated in the Constitution which are constitutionally protested anyways. As far as the constitution not saying anything about unions... that's just an asinine comment considering the history of unions which have succesfully argued that the right of assembly clause protects unionization.
 
Well I mentioned it mostly because conservatives like yourself seem to be so invested in 'protecting' the workers in their state while attacking the unions which represent so many of those workers. As far as your commentary on the Constitution goes, I'm not even sure what it has to do with anything. There are many rights not enumerated in the Constitution which are constitutionally protested anyways. As far as the constitution not saying anything about unions... that's just an asinine comment considering the history of unions which have succesfully argued that the right of assembly clause protects unionization.

Unless you think the second amendment gives me the right to bear arms anywhere I want and of any nature I choose, bazookas, tanks, nukes etc. your comments about union’s constitutional rights are just silly because the second amendment is clearly written in the constitution but it is regulated while the rights of unions isn’t written in the constitution and only a nut job would claim it can’t be regulated.

Now get back on topic or stop posting to this thread.
 
While I do think that the problem of illegal immigration should be dealt with on a federal level and not a state one, I have trouble being too upset about this, since I've been advocating for laws like this for quite some time now, and the federal government shows zero interest in passing them.
 
I suppose we will now see a lot of Conservatives screaming bloody murder at states blatantly engaging in unconstitutional union busting.

What the hell does Union thuggery have to do with the subject at hand.

See we can change the focus of the argument too.

I have studied the Constitution and I don't for the life of me remember seeing a word about Unions in it.
 
I suppose we will now see a lot of Conservatives screaming bloody murder at states blatantly engaging in unconstitutional union busting.

Wait, what?

Anyway, good for SCOTUS. It has always been a supply and demand issue. As long as there is a demand for cheap labor, there's going to be people crossing the border. If businesses stop hiring illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants will have less reason to come here.
 
Yeah but it paves the way for other states to punish employers who willingly employ illegal’s and it is a step forward for state’s rights to enforce immigration laws.

This is good news. If the federal government is not going to perform their role, and protect our borders, states have to step up and do it themselves.
 
I suppose we will now see a lot of Conservatives screaming bloody murder at states blatantly engaging in unconstitutional union busting.

I think that the union issue is slightly more complex. The role of unions in maintaining government employees at high costs to the local, state, county, and federal agencies, is not necessarily supported by the constitution. I'm not sure our founding fathers would have been in favor of the large governments we presently find ourselves saddled with, where the employees of the government agencies have the power to negotiate salaries that are in excess of the prevailing local wages, or hold the government hostage via a strike. I support unions, generally, but I've seen government employee unions really be detrimental to the public well-being, particularly federal employee unions, teacher unions, and to be brutally honest, police unions can be some of the worst.
 
No, although I thought the employer rules were in the same bill.

Two different bill, the Employer Sanction bill was passed 2 years (I think) before SB1070.
 
What the hell does Union thuggery have to do with the subject at hand.

See we can change the focus of the argument too.

I have studied the Constitution and I don't for the life of me remember seeing a word about Unions in it.

Constitutionally, people have the right to association, and to set a value on their services, without government interference. This not only applies to the owners of the companies, but to the workers as well, whose sweat from their brows also has a value. But this is another subject that we can debate in another thread. Sorry if I derailed this thread a bit. Back to the subject at hand.
 
We are a Nation of Laws if you don't like them change them. In the mean time don't bitch about them.
 
Back
Top Bottom