Wait, you mean states are allowed to protect themselves against criminal behavior? Who knew?
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave Arizona and other states more authority to take action against illegal immigrants and the companies that hire them, ruling that employers who knowingly hire illegal workers can lose their license to do business.
The 5-3 decision upholds the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 and its so-called business death penalty for employers who are caught repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants. The state law also requires employers to check the federal E-Verify system before hiring new workers, a provision that was also upheld Thursday.
[…]
Thursday’s decision is a defeat for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, several civil-rights groups and the Obama administration, all of whom opposed the Arizona law and its sanctions on employers. They argued that federal law said states may not impose “civil or criminal sanctions” on employers.
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said another portion of the same law made clear that states were free to use their “licensing” laws to punish employers. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. formed the majority in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting.
The Arizona law upheld Thursday was signed into law by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, who now serves as secretary of Homeland Security for President Obama.
In dissent were Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. They said federal law prohibited states from imposing their own immigration-related rules on employers. Justice Elena Kagan sat out the case.
Anthony Kennedy staggers back toward the correct side of the law….for one decision. Sigh…
Kagan recused herself? There’s hope yet that she’ll do the right thing regarding Obamacare if and when…
Still, I’m not getting the resistence to this. It kind of follows the left’s usual way of thinking; it’s not the minority drug dealers fault, but that of the suburban white kid who buys the drugs. After all, the dealer is a capitalist and merely addressing the needs of the market, eh?
And besides, it’s eeeeeevollllll business anyway that makes eeeeeeevolllllll profits off of low cost labor anyway; and you’d think that they’d have to check with the feds for permission on anything would earn the statist stamp of approval :)
My guess? They fear that businesses won’t hire illegals, or those they suspect of being so.
What good is the transnational movement if no one wants to come here!
I’m surprised that the Court even acknowledges the existence of the several States any more. I figured all that federalism compromise stuff happened over 100 years ago, and doesn’t have any bearing on our modern times.
The assumption you’re making in error is that the left uses arguments like these on a principle that allows for what most people would see as a solution to the problem.
To the left, it’s all about preventing solutions. You can’t work a good Cloward-Piven unless all the problems are getting worse.
I’m a bit worried about blowback on this one. Let’s see what happens when California decides to punish employers for not providing health benefits to pets (sorry, “non-human life partners).
Squid,
Oddly enough, the majority of the Court appears to have ignored the learned advice of the scholarly Ezra Klein.
Imagine that…
McGeehee, they have principles, albeit not ones that you or I would regard as anything less than morally and ethically reprehensible.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
I reject the notion that progressives have principles. They have goals, but not principles.
By Any Means Necessary isn’t a principle?
Badly written. The Supremes don’t “give” power to the States, they recognize the power the States have always had – to set their own laws. They are sovereign. That was the deal in 1776, and it’s the deal today.
LMC, that means Californicatia will consist entirely of illegal immigrants, violent felons, and George Clooney.
In a deathmatch!
Not in my book, though you might be able to convince me otherwise. At most, it’s a principle to not have any principles, which appears to be contradictory.
I blush to admit that I didn’t think of your point until you pointed it out.
It’s the LA Times, mojo, so yeah, they DO think the SCOTUS just “gave new rights” to the States.
Then why the heck do they make employers fill out an I-9? It’s really about the I-9 you have to sign when you take a job. What’s the big deal here?
Am I wrong or wasn’t the Chamber of Commerce public enemy number one about a year ago? Weren’t they Alinskied for allegedly accepting foreign money while at the same time making campaign donations to conservatives?