Arizona now leads the Nation

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Arizona Governor Napolitano signs immigrant bill targeting employers
Matthew Benson
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 2, 2007 04:20 PM

Gov. Janet Napolitano today signed sweeping legislation against employers of undocumented workers, and asked for cooperation from legislative leaders to call a special session to address what she called critical flaws in the bill.

With the governor's approval of House Bill 2779, Arizona takes the lead among states in dealing with the underground market in illegal labor. Napolitano termed the bill “the most aggressive action in the country.”

Her signature comes just days after the failure of a comprehensive immigration reform measure being considered by the U.S. Senate. Napolitano has lamented that proposal's collapse, and blasted Congress anew on Monday as she said Arizona could no longer afford to wait.

“We're dealing somewhat in uncharted territory right now – uncharted territory because of the inability of the Congress to act,” Napolitano said. “The states will take the lead, and Arizona will take the lead among the states.”

After Jan. 1, every employer in Arizona will be required to verify the legal status of their employees through a federal database known as the Basic Pilot program. The law means a license suspension for any business caught "knowingly" or "intentionally" hiring an undocumented worker. A second violation within three to five years, depending on the circumstances, will result in a permanent license revocation - the death penalty for a business.

The law will have wide-ranging impacts on those businesses and the more than a quarter-million undocumented individuals estimated to be in Arizona workplaces already.

“Arizona businesses now must play by the same rules or face the consequences,” bill sponsor Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said in a statement. “Arizona will have one fair system for employers, and no longer are they going to be able to rely on cheap, illegal labor.”

But immediate opposition came from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which called the measure “a crippling blow to Arizona business.”

“Arizona's elected officials have caved to the political pressure of this emotional issue and deflected the burden for a national immigration problem onto the backs of businesses in Arizona,” wrote Arizona chamber President and CEO Glenn Hamer. He said the Basic Pilot program is error-prone and figures to be overwhelmed when thousands of Arizona businesses begin its use.

Napolitano acknowledged there are problems with the bill, and said she plans to sit down with legislative leaders in the days ahead to gauge interest in a fall special session. Napolitano pointed to significant issues that need correction, including:

bullet Insufficient funding for enforcement.

bullet Overbroad language that could cause a chain of businesses to be penalized if a single location was cited.

bullet The lack of an exemption to ensure that critical facilities such as hospitals and power plants don't have to temporarily close their operations if undocumented workers are found among their staffs.

“For an immigration violation for hiring a nursing aid, are you going to close down a nursing home?” Napolitano asked.

Despite the problems, she said the bill takes a big step toward addressing Arizona's market in illegal labor, which is seen as a major draw to the Valley for would-be border crossers. A veto, Napolitano said, would have sent lawmakers back to Square One next session and the likelihood of another legislative “morass.”

“It's time to move the issue forward,” she said.

The law in its current form has many legal problems, said Julie Pace, a Phoenix employment attorney who advises clients on employment issues.

The legal problems involve violations of due process, interstate commerce, and federal laws, she said. Her firm, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, plans on working with a business coalition to lead a legal challenge against the law.

“It puts Arizona at a competitive disadvantage, and Arizona businesses are hurt the most,” she said. “We're going to have law enforcement intruding into businesses more frequently. It's going to increase (employer's) attorney's fees, accounting fees, and additional staff. It's going to give Arizona a black eye.”

Latino leaders and activists reacted strongly and quickly to the new law. A coalition plans on asking for a special session to improve the bill, said Mary Rose Wilcox, a Maricopa County Supervisor and Hispanic activist.

“We realize employer sanctions are wanted, but we also feel that immigration reform cannot be done piecemeal like this,” said Wilcox. “People are just incensed about this. This will be disastrous for the state of Arizona.”

Includes material from Republic reporter Yvonne Wingett

House Bill 2779 (Fair and Legal Employment Act)

Provisions


o Would prohibit employers from knowingly or intentionally hiring undocumented workers.

o Starting Jan. 1, would require all employers to run their employees through the Basic Pilot Program to determine their legal status. Use of the program would act as a sort of immunity for employers facing prosecution under the law.

o Would form an eight-member committee to study employer-sanctions laws in Arizona and whether they are fairly enforced. A committee report would be due to the governor, speaker of the House and Senate president by the end of 2008.

Penalties

o 1st offense: Businesses caught "knowingly" employing an undocumented worker would lose their license for up to 10 days. Those caught "intentionally" hiring an undocumented worker would lose their license for at least 10 days.

The court would order that the employment of all undocumented workers at the business be terminated, and require the employer to sign an affidavit stating that the workers were fired and they will not hire such workers in the future. Employers would be placed on probation for three years (five, for "intentional" violations)

o 2nd offense (while on probation): Permanent revocation of the business license.

Enforcement

Investigations would be conducted based on complaints against employers.

o If the complaint was shown to be valid, the investigator would be required to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local law enforcement.

o From the state's 2007-08 General Fund, the bill would provide $100,000 to the Arizona Attorney General's Office, and $2.4 million to be distributed to county prosecutors.

Arizona now leads the nation in dealing with illegal immigration. This is one heck of a sanction. Perhaps better than fines or jail time.
 

applesanity

New member
A leap in the right direction, I suppose

A very far approach from that one poster who proposed a "shooting range" to be set up along the border. This law seems to be something reasonable. Something that deals with supply and demand appropriately. What barbed wire fence?

I also like the fact that the law dealt with a narrow issue, and left other aspects and consesquences of illegal immigration for future legislation. "Comprehensive" bills are usually anything but.

There are a few reservations, such as those that the article notices.

...would require all employers to run their employees through the Basic Pilot Program to determine their legal status.

How does does that thin fuzzy line get drawn? What if I wanted to hire some teenager in the neighborhood to trim the hedges - on a monthly basis - in front of my store?

"Wait, before I give you this wadded up $20, I gotta get some clearance from Uncle Sam."

Yes, I'm nitpicking for sure, but a little clarification here would be appreciated. (theinvisibleheart - here's a situation where a "what if" scenario is useful: for the sake of argument's sake.)
 

Trapper L

New member
Let's see here, an illegal alien can have a social security card by the end of the week. He can incoporate a business in another week. So now as a sub contractor, it is up to him to see that his employees are "legal". Here's some more worthless legislation for ya. And yea, they're already doing this in Texas. Just try to find the actual owners to prosecute. They're busy opening up yet another corporation to beat the system and most have several SS cards. Ever try to find a guy by the name of Juan Sanchez? There are thousands- best of luck finding the right one.
 

paratrooper

New member
I would like to tell Janet that Congress didn't pass that crapola bill because Americans didn't want THAT "solution". We need stronger measures than that lame bill provided for . As for The Chamber Of Commerce crying . It sounds like they are saying that they cannot do business without breaking the law . Bank robbers should take a look at this tactic .
 

azredhawk44

Moderator
Janet knew she'd have a dang-near state mutiny and lynch mob if she didn't sign it. Americans in general are fed up, and Arizonans in particular are REALLY fed up.

Trapper L, you're right that they can dance around the system as owner/operator subcontractors, but that's the smart ones. Most of them aren't that smart or well connected enough to get that done, fresh from the desert crossing. The ones you refer to wouldn't be caught under the old non-existent check system, so this one at least addresses a chunk of the problem rather than none.

I'm sure that the chamber of commerce will shop around for the perfect court (Probably in Tucson) to challenge this law, and Janet will be incredibly slow in enforcement, but she ain't gonna be here forever.

Now if we could just get local LEO's obligated to check ID on drivers pulled over with no ID / insurance / registration. No more sanctuary cities!
 

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Lady at the Licensing window: "I'm sorry Mr. Sanchez. I can't issue you a business license today. Your name and/or address do not match the SSN you gave me... Next!"

It is a workable solution. It is not a permanent "fix," rather a step in the direction to stem the flow of unlawful immigration by stopping the demand. The only way to do that, is to enforce workplace restrictions. The Basic Pilot Program is a means to do this.

It is a start. Not an end.
 

blume357

New member
the penalty is a joke...

I've said all along the solution to this is put the folks hiring (employers) in jail. How hard is that to understand? You hire illegals and get caught you go to jail for a month or 12..... that would solve the issue quick.

It's all about money... as long as a big business owner only has to pay a fine or jokey the laws and paper work and keep hiring different workers... and the cost is worth it.... it'll continue
 

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Blume, in states that require a business license to do any kind of business, this will work. Hire illegals and you are out of business for up to ten days, the first time around. Get caught again, and you are out of business, period.

Send them to jail and/or a hefty fine, and they are still in business, making money... To compensate their jail-time and/or fine. Shut them down, and they get nothing.

Regardless, this is at least better than doing nothing or waiting for the Feds to do the right thing (which we all know they won't anyway)!

Can this law be tweaked to be more effective? Absolutely. Will it? Hard to say. I would hope that next legislative session, Idaho follows suit.
 

armoredman

New member
I've always been a believer in conspicous punishment. Business owners who are convicted of taking jobs from Americans shall be sentenced to clean a section of hot freeway...where all mothers are encouraged to drop dirty diapers.
 

madmag

New member
Oklahoma is about next as far as good new illegal immigration controls.

To bad our federal government doesn't pitch in and help in what should be first a federal enforcement issue. BTW, the basic pilot program does work. Kinda a civilian version of the NCIC crime data base. So far when illegals see a business that uses the program they don't even bother to apply.

Now this is the part that has me mad for along time. This type of enforcement is not complicated, and it will work. All it takes is the will to apply. Instead our government sits around on it's butt waiting for some bill to pass that we all know won't work.

always been a believer in conspicuous punishment. Business owners who are convicted of taking jobs from Americans shall be sentenced to clean a section of hot freeway...where all mothers are encouraged to drop dirty diapers.

Let that happen and you will see employers nation wide abandon illegals like rats leaving a sinking ship.
 

JWT

New member
Nice to see Janet finally do something I agree with. azredhawk44 is probably right in saying the ACLU or Chamber of Commerce will find a friendly Tucson court and judge to at least stall the law, if not overthrow it. Tucson, and it's newspapers are very very friendly to illegals. (They like to call them undocumented entrants - illegal aliens is demeaning)
 

Bruxley

New member
The approach of going after their business license vs. going after the individual is obvious. VERY few businesses are structured as sole proprietorships or partnerships. The vast majority are Corporations of conventional or Limited Liability variety. The complexities of identifying a specific individual to hold accountable in a Corporation and the 'I wasn't directly involved on that decision' defense makes going after the license a smart approach.

It's 2 down and 2 to go in my assessment. Denying services and requiring proof of identity to vote (Prop 200) were passed 2 years ago and enforcement started last year. Now we are taking away the draw of employment. The last 2 elements are to secure the border and to pass some State laws that authorized non-federal law enforcement to detain and hold illegals.

Janet vetoed the legislation to give LEAs what they need and it IS going to take Federal action to secure the border.

Just plain ODD that it takes CONVINCING to get the border secured. What in the world is so foreign about being concerned about WHO is coming into your country?
 

JWT

New member
I see by todays paper that two different groups have already filed lawsuits to block the implementation of the law. They are arguing that the state cannot regulate immigration stating it's unconstitutional because immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Editorially the Tucson Daily Star is chastizing the governor for the same reason.
 

Silver Bullet

New member
For a Democrat governor, I've been pleasantly surprised by Janet.

I hope this doesn't mean that Arizona businesses are now at a competitive disadvantage to states that just look the other way. On a state level Arizona businesses are okay, but those that make a product to sell nationwide might find themselves with higher labor costs.

Overall I think this is good news.
 

madmag

New member
For a Democrat governor, I've been pleasantly surprised by Janet.

She was just feeling the heat, and I don't mean the 115 degrees it has been lately in Phoenix. Now the next person in-line for some heat is McCain. His changes to win Republican nomination are about equal to mine. Well, maybe mine are better because I did not support the Kennedy-Bush immigration bill.:D

Janet knew she'd have a dang-near state mutiny and lynch mob if she didn't sign it. Americans in general are fed up, and Arizonans in particular are REALLY fed up.

That's what I meant to say.
 

Bruxley

New member
The lawsuits are the normal tactic for Janet when immigration issues (or anything she doesn't like for that matter) are pressed upon her. Like many Dems the courts are their device not to do the will of their constituency.

The matter will drag it's way through all of the usual legal wranglings to delay implementation like prop 200 did. In the end it will hopefully be realized that regulation of business and employment are in fact State jurisdictions and that this isn't a matter of immigration enforcement, it is a matter of employment and business regulations.

The law does not enforce who can immigrate, it is a parallel law with the federal I-9 employment eligibility laws. Everyone that gets a job in the US fills of an I-9 form. The employer retains it and submits it upon request to show you have checked the documents listed and that the individual is eligible for employment. That document isn't immigration enforcement, and neither is AZ new law. Are employers enforcing immigration laws when they have new hires fill out the form and photocopy the documents? NOPE.....
 

GotGlock19

New member
Its about time that State goverments are taking action, Last time i checked we are a republic which is defined :
A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress that the rule of law is an essential feature of a republic.

Sine our federal goverment no longer represents the popular opinion of its people, A State goverment listening and acting on what the people want is a large step in the right direction.
 

madmag

New member
I think this relates, at least to the idea that the fed's are not doing their job. Anyway, I don't want to start a thread with this theme. I did that recently and it went wild. I talked about impeachment proceedings only as a tool to let our President know how we really feel about the job he is doing. Now just today I read this article. So, maybe I am just a little crazy...not a lot crazy.:rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush
 
Top