The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Arizona’s 2007 law requiring all employers in the state to use the federal E-Verify system for screening out illegal aliens and revoking the business licenses of firms that knowingly hire them.
The court split 5–3 along party lines: Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor (Kagan recused herself) ignored the plain meaning of the federal law empowering states to use their licensing power to address the employment of illegal workers. Chief Justice Roberts, on the other hand, found “no basis in law, fact, or logic” for the argument that Arizona should be stopped from doing so in the name of federal “preemption” of state activity.
Advertisement
It’s an important win for many reasons, not least of them the fact that Arizona’s E-Verify mandate actually works. While the illegal-alien population nationwide fell 7 percent from 2008 to 2009, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the number of illegal aliens in Arizona fell by nearly 18 percent, and many analysts credit the E-Verify mandate with that success.
The Court’s decision was a resounding loss for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce–Obama administration effort to prevent states from buttressing federal immigration law. While it doesn’t necessarily follow that the Court will also uphold the suspended portions of last year’s SB1070 — which makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona and imposes stiff penalties on those who employ and enable illegals — the ruling is a green light for other states to pass their own E-Verify laws. A dozen have already enacted mandates of varying breadth, most recently Georgia and Indiana.
The Chamber of Commerce will complain, but a loss for business lobbyists is not a loss for business. In helping to weaken the employment magnet that draws illegal immigrants to the United States in the first place, E-Verify is an essential tool for immigration control, and it’s likely to become a national standard. The only questions are whether that will happen sooner or later, and whether the process will be smooth or rough. Responsible, law-abiding businesses now have an incentive to work in Congress for a single, national E-Verify mandate, one that would apply in all states and create the stability and predictability that business needs most from government.
Thursday’s decision weakens the hand of the bitter-enders in the Chamber of Commerce, but it has not vanquished them: They are prepared to fight a state-by-state, scorched-earth battle against E-Verify. Such a battle might succeed in delaying implementation of the system in some parts of the country, at the price of heightened uncertainty for employers wanting to hire. Such instability is inherently bad for business.
House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R., Texas) will be introducing an E-Verify bill soon, and Speaker Boehner would be well-advised to put it on a fast track. Passage will not be easy; the reason the Chamber of Commerce and the Obama administration made defeat of the Arizona E-Verify law in court such a high priority is that each wants to trade mandatory E-Verify for something else. The White House sees E-Verify as a bargaining chip for amnesty, while the Chamber wants to hold it hostage to huge increases in “temporary” worker programs. If Thursday’s ruling creates momentum for a national E-Verify standard as a standalone measure, it knocks one of the legs out from under a “comprehensive reform” amnesty deal.
The Supreme Court has given us an opening: The essential thing now is to capitalize on it, state by state and in Washington.
Look at the two most prominent opponents of this law: the Obama administration and the Chamber of Commerce. Obama - and liberal/Democratic activists - favor unlimited immigration and easy citizenship for unskilled, low-income people who will vote almost 100% Democratic. Business interests will do anything to boost short-term profits and want an unlimited source of cheap, easily-controlled labor.
In the long run, of course, importing tens of millions of left-wing voters will result in a socialist America, which is fine with Obama. But is it too much to ask for business executives to support policies that will maintain the free-enterprise America they claim to support? Or are their annual bonuses and stock options more important than any patriotic impulses they might have?
John Webster, you are exactly right. The reason we have this mess is that both parties support illegal immigration, albeit for different reasons. It is now time for the Republican party to disavow the Chamber and its ilk, and do what is right for this country and its citizens.
Now that some states have an E Verify law and some do not, perhaps we can now see what if any changes it brings about.
In particular, are jobs previously held by illegal immigrants now going to legal workers and are wages rising for those jobs?
One glaring indicator of illegal workers' in my view is people doing work for minimum wage, that should pay double or triple the minimum wage. IE, if you can work at the supermarket for minimum wage, why would you want to work on a hot roof for the same money?
Not being a reporter or having the money to take off from work to find out, I would love to see some follow up studies on wages in states with Mandatory E Verify vs. states without.
If my theory is right, proponents of enforcement will have a rock solid "look how much we help poor people with immigration enforcement" argument to further our cause.
Of course if something good happens as a result of conservative legislation, and no one reports on it, does it make a sound?
Business leaders who think the rule of law is foundational to prosperity should demand that the big business interests dominating the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should stand down. There can be no property or commercial rights in a lawless society.
This ruling has singlehandedly caused me to reassess (in a positive direction) whether I think my country has a future ahead of it, and whether I should be packing my bags for Australia/Canada, which have immigration policies that actually advance citizens' interests and the national interest, as compared to the US de facto policy of destruction of the rule of law and equal enforcement of the law for all, importation of poverty and plummeting education levels, and the creation of a new, Third World state within a state.
Good on the Supreme Court for allowing common sense, rather than liberal fantasies, to carry the day.
Although NY has no E-Verify law, I suppose that consistency should demand that NRO e-verifies its employees. Will the editors please confirm that they have been e-verified by NRO?
I never thought I'd live to see the day when conservatives would champion a law that requires employers and employees to get permission from the federal government before starting work.
Replying to Nordicus Major: You're missing the point. It's not asking for "permission" to work from the federal government. They just happen to be able to track and verify (as do banks) who is a citizen and who is not. It is the individual states' right to enforce their own rules requiring employers to hire only those living in the state legally. NRO is celebrating that very fact. I live in Arizona, and I can tell you how nice it is to be able to go to McDonald's and have them understand me and vice versa. (Try that in California.) Believe me, there is no shortage of legal citizens applying for jobs here.
Ma'am: States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. States have powers. Is it within the power of a state to impose upon business the obligation to determine whether a potential employee is a legal immigrant or not? Yes, I think it is.
It is also within a state's power to require a potential employer to act as the unpaid collector of income taxes for its employees. Back in the 1930s, businesses complained about being conscripted as unpaid tax collectors. They lost and as a result we are overtaxed.
I suppose they'll lose this one too, and as a result hard-working immigrants will not be able to work in this country.
While we're at it, let's ask state governments to make businesses responsible for verifying whether a potential employee has an outstanding traffic ticket or an outstanding warrant for murder. It would make the police's job easier, I suppose.
Finally, something that should be done nationwide. The reason that we are having this problem because we allow leeway so our companies can take advantage of cheap labor. Who could turn down paying 2@/hr w/o benefit compared to minimum wage. I also lean toward a seasonal guest worker program. Why run through cargo container and tunnel if you can get a visa. The drawback being we are expanding the government. Is this something worth investing?
If taxation is the power to destroy, what is it when the government goes the next step and can stop you from engaging in work for pay? They already had too much power and now you think this is OK?
