U.S. Supreme Court upholds Arizona law punishing businesses that hire illegal immigra

[actuarial]

Your analogy is wrong. In this case they are removing the demand (jobs), which is the same thing they are trying to do with drugs. Arrest the users to reduce demand. The other way to remove the demand for illegal drugs would be to make them legal.

You analogy isn't correct either. It all depends on how you map the product, the consumer, and the provider.

I would say in Marlin's analogy:
product = jobs/crack
consumer = illegals/crack heads
provider = job owners/dealers

This ruling doesn't reduce the demand for low paying American jobs, it just punishes people who create the supply of them. It's closer to busting up BALCO as opposed to punishing Bonds.

This is definitely the way to go IMO. We know the punishments now aren't enough disincentive to keep people out of the US, so eliminate their incentive to come in the first place. Who wants to move to a place where there are no jobs for them?

 

[gevorg]

Looks like Arizona has more balls than Texas lately.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Why are you all cheering? This is an attack on Capitalism!

 

[Macamus Prime]

Looks like Arizona has more balls than Texas lately.

Careful, that comment is within the laws of Texas to have you executed.

 

[shortylickens]

Win.

Punish the rich whites who send jobs overseas and displace American jobs. They're the ones with the actual power.
I dont actually blame the illegals themselves too much, they are just going for the jobs that lazy or cheap Americans pass out to them.
Of course, they bring their own problems with them but thats not what this thread is about.

Its about states being allowed to fix their problems, nothing more.

 

[OCGuy]

The funny part is that Democrats are always arguing against deporting illegals, saying "go after the people that hire them!!!!"

Now that AZ is actually going after the employers, they change their tune.

It shows the liberal agenda's true colors: Open borders.

Too bad, libbies.

 

[werepossum]

Punishing employers will never stop illegal immigration, because living twenty to an apartment and hanging out at Home Depot waiting for some cash labor work is still far better than most of these people can hope to achieve in their native countries. It can however go a long way toward stopping the erosion of wages caused by illegals. This is a very good thing.

Kudos to Kagan too for recusing herself. Catcalls to the three other liberal justices on the wrong side of this issue, as almost every issue.

 

[shortylickens]

The funny part is that Democrats are always arguing against deporting illegals, saying "go after the people that hire them!!!!"

Now that AZ is actually going after the employers, they change their tune.

It shows the liberal agenda's true colors: Open borders.

Too bad, libbies.

Actually Democrats dont. They want them to stay and breed like rabbits so they can have all those votes.

 

[bfdd]

good news.

 

[1prophet]

E-verify is a feel good sham that is purposely misrepresented by the government as a way to protect employers who wish to comply with the law from hiring people the US government deems not eligible for work.
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/News/Transcript_SelfCheckSecrtry.pdf

DIRECTOR MAYORKAS: Employers can misuse E-Verify by actually checking the employment eligibility of an individual before that individual has been hired. You can well imagine the discriminatory impact of that. E-Verify is to be used for individuals who recently have been hired by an employer, and if in fact there's a tentative nonconfirmation with respect to that employee's eligibility, the employee has eight business days within which to resolve that.

How many of you actually thought you were complying with the law if you used E-verify before you hired someone?


Makes as much sense as letting you board the plane and then check if you are on a no-fly list.

 

[Craig234]

Don't confuse an issue - illegal immigration, enforcing laws against hiring - with the legal issues in a case.

This is post 36 and I haven't seen one post yet that looks at the reasons for the dissent (other than the usual nutjob comments that have no substance).

'Hey, the Supreme Court ruled cops can pull over and search cars they think look suspicious for drugs. This is great, I don't like drug dealers!'

It's sad that we have a court with 4 radical right-wingers (one far but not radical right-winger) and 4 more sane Justices, where just 'Republican' means 'liberal'.

The non-radical 4 are nearly always right that I've seen - the dissent should be read.

 

[MotF Bane]

The non-radical 4 are nearly always right that I've seen - the dissent should be read.

Then you haven't seen much.

 

[PokerGuy]

Then you haven't seen much.

Common now, you're referring to our favorite lunatic fringe wacko, surely you weren't expecting better?

 

[Thump553]

E-verify is a feel good sham that is purposely misrepresented by the government as a way to protect employers who wish to comply with the law from hiring people the US government deems not eligible for work.
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/News/Transcript_SelfCheckSecrtry.pdf
How many of you actually thought you were complying with the law if you used E-verify before you hired someone?


Makes as much sense as letting you board the plane and then check if you are on a no-fly list.

Now I'm hopelessly confused. I thought having employers check BEFORE hiring was the whole purpose of E-Verifiy, now that's being claimed as an abuse of the system?

Employers incur a lot of additional expense by the simple act of employing someone, even if it is only for an hour (off the books employers not counted).