# SC Rules Arizona Can Punish Businesses That Hire Illegals **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293 "2011-05-26T15:02:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Profound\_Gibberish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Profound\_Gibberish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Profound_Gibberish)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/1 "2011-05-26T15:02:19Z")
> **[High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses](http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/26/scotus.arizona.law/index.html?hpt=T2)** > > The Supreme Court has backed an Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants, a law that opponents, including the Obama administration, say steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters. I have been a long-time believer that the US should address the demand side of illegal immigration and punish businesses that hire illegals (ex: every chicken processing plant in the US). Immigrants overwhelmingly enter illegally for jobs. I would think that \*reducing the demand \*for illegal labor is a lot easier than patrolling thousands of miles of borders to _reduce the supply_. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/2 "2011-05-26T15:13:38Z")
This makes no sense. Punishing businesses that hire illegals is a great idea. But Arizona laws are always stupid ideas. Something is wrong here. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/3 "2011-05-26T15:56:44Z")
This was a simple question of interpretation. Congress said states can’t impose civil penalties, but can regulate licensing regarding employment of illegal aliens. Is the revocation of a business’s authorization to exist under state law a civil penalty or a regulation of licensing? Whatever the correct answer is, the question just isn’t that interesting. IMHO, congress did not intend this result, but they wrote a badly worded statute. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/4 "2011-05-26T16:01:53Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > This makes no sense. Punishing businesses that hire illegals is a great idea. But Arizona laws are always stupid ideas. Something is wrong here. Emphasis added. That’s not much of an argument. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/5 "2011-05-26T16:06:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added. That’s not much of an argument. It doesn’t take much when we’re talking about Arizona. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/6 "2011-05-26T16:11:15Z")
That’s not much of an argument either. ---
**Author:** ![nolonger\_lurking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/41988e/32.png) [@nolonger\_lurking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nolonger_lurking)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/7 "2011-05-26T16:12:20Z")
I generally support this administration’s goals, but not this time. I don’t see why they felt the need to challenge this law. I am comfortable with broad state control over business licensing as long as it is neutral ideologically and with respect to civil rights. I also believe that requiring use of E-Verify is kosher unless the federal government is going to claim that the E-Verify system is biased. Unless we have reason to believe that enforcement will be biased? I am also more optimistic about the efficacy of employer-targeted laws. Tighter enforcement on individuals at most deports them back to where they started. Tighter enforcement on businesses forces a choice between low-price labor and low-risk labor. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/8 "2011-05-26T16:22:02Z")
Immigration is a federal issue. Licensing businesses is (generally) a state issue. A state deciding that “don’t hire people who violate federal law X if you want to be licensed here” doesn’t really entangle the two in a Constitutionally dubious manner. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/9 "2011-05-26T16:33:04Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Immigration is a federal issue. Licensing businesses is (generally) a state issue. A state deciding that “don’t hire people who violate federal law X if you want to be licensed here” doesn’t really entangle the two in a Constitutionally dubious manner. It’s only not constitutionally dubious to the extent Congress expressly allowed it. Otherwise, having states interpret and enforce federal law raises all kinds of problems. The penalty for violating a law is carefully calibrated to balance various concerns – if the penalty is too harsh, you might get unintended consequences. So it can be a real problem to have states tacking on penalties for federal laws. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/10 "2011-05-26T16:37:38Z")
“Illegal” is not a noun. No problem here with the ruling. The “show me your papers, boy” law is the one I’m worried about. ---
**Author:** ![Profound\_Gibberish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Profound\_Gibberish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Profound_Gibberish)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/11 "2011-05-26T17:54:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Illegal” is not a noun. > > No problem here with the ruling. > > The “show me your papers, boy” law is the one I’m worried about. Yeah, they seem to be challenging the law point by point. I agree wtih this point. The others, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/12 "2011-05-26T18:14:52Z")
This is the beauty of the Arizona law in a nut shell. The law does not create conflict with the federal system. From CNN: [http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/26/scotus.arizona.law/index.html?hpt=T1](http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/26/scotus.arizona.law/index.html?hpt=T1) > [@](#): > > Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “It relies solely on the federal government’s own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government’s own system for checking employee status.” ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/13 "2011-05-26T22:40:23Z")
I think the bigger story here is the 3 Justices that voted against AZ. I can in no way think of a conceivable reason it should not be supported 100%, so I fail to understand Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor which doesn’t really surprise me… > [@](#): > > Breyer said the Arizona law upsets a balance in federal law between dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because they may speak with an accent or look like they might be immigrants. > > Employers “will hesitate to hire those they fear will turn out to lack the right to work in the United States,” he said. From my HR/employer stand point, I can call bull sh\*t on that line of thought. We’ve been utilizing e-verify for a long time, as should all employers IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/14 "2011-05-26T22:57:52Z")
I’m pretty much all for it and am especially interested in what effects it has on business and agriculture. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/15 "2011-05-26T23:11:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Illegal” is not a noun. Why shouldn’t it be? English is not Latin. It is a living and flexible langauge. _Impact_ can be used as both a noun and a verb; _raven_ can be a noun, verb, or adjective; _out_ can be noun, verb, adjective, adverb, and preposition. The use of _illegal_ to me “a non-citizen resident in a given country without governmental permission” isn’t even especially new. Merriam-Webster has it going back to 1939. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/16 "2011-05-27T17:39:44Z")
[Postville raid - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postville_Raid) It is not a small scale transgression by a few companies. Some companies have encouraged illegals to come to their plants for work. Often they confiscate the workers papers and then they own them. They can not go elsewhere if they get abused or cheated. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-rules-arizona-can-punish-businesses-that-hire-illegals/583293/17 "2011-05-27T18:44:13Z")
I haven’t followed the Arizona Vs Illegal immigrant saga at all. I hope this doesn’t constitute a hijack of this thread, but does Arizona have a plan i place to enforce this law? Does Arizona have the personnel and/or funding? Or will the Federal government be required to participate?