New Prove-You're-A-Citizen law

[JimmyLyding]

When Governor Brewer signs this into law, can anyone see some unintended consequences? For those who don't know, this law will allow law enforcement officials to require anyone they come into contact with to prove that they are legally allowed to be in this country whether as a citizen or guest. For the record a valid driver's license is NOT considered proof-of-citizenship. Does this mean that those of us who appear as if we might be foreign have to carry around our birth certificates?
I'm not that worried about myself because I'm a 6'4" white dude, but then I remember reading about 80-year-old nuns being strip-searched by airport security.
As for hiking, I always carry my wallet with me because I'd rather risk losing it on the trail than having it stolen out of my car. But I'm not about to carry my birth certificate around. Anyhoo, this law will probably be struck down by the courts.

[Jeffshadows]

I'm here to help! :bigth:

[PaleoRob]

What is the point of E-Verify if you're not using it to check on immigration status or screen employees? Do employers use it to just find out if their employees are illegals for fun?

[big_load]

What is the point of E-Verify if you're not using it to check on immigration status or screen employees? Do employers use it to just find out if their employees are illegals for fun?

There is a defined process for how and when you submit for verification, and also for what happens when it doesn't come out OK. The manual spells it out pretty well. In brief, you may check after hiring, and there is opportunity for more in-depth checking if a submission fails. You can terminate employment if the failure is confirmed.

I would not object to changing the law to allow pre-employment verification if it can be made sufficiently reliable. However, as it stands, employers are required to attest that the process has been properly followed and are subject to civil and potentially even criminal penalties if it has not. As someone who has occasion to sign such things, I don't take it lightly.

[PaleoRob]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Al_HikesAZ]

Rob - as I understand it, Arizona changed the procedure to require pre-employment screening. The Federal Government sued Arizona claiming that AZ was interfering with Federal authority. The US Supreme Court on May 26, 2011 in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting ruled in Arizona's favor. That is why states like Alabama are adopting new Laws.

Holding: The provision of the Legal Arizona Workers Act that provides for the suspension and/or revocation of the business licenses of Arizona employers who knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens is not expressly preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act, which prohibits the knowing hiring of unauthorized immigrants and preempts state laws imposing sanctions on those who hire unauthorized immigrants; the Arizona law falls within the IRCA’s exception that preserves state authority to impose sanctions through “licensing and similar laws.” Nor is Arizona’s requirement that employers use the federal “E-Verify” system to confirm eligibility for employment not impliedly preempted, as it does not conflict with the federal scheme, and the federal statute establishing E-Verify does not constrain state action.(emphasis added)Judgment: AFFIRMED, 5-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May 26, 2011. Justice Thomas joined the opinion in part and concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Sotomayor filed her own dissenting opinion. (Kagan, J., recused.)

[edit]I may have spoken inartfully when I said "pre-employment screening". As I understand it, the E-verify is used after "hiring" the Employee when they are filling out their paperwork, specifically their I-9, but before they have officially started work. So I guess they have been "employed" but haven't really started as an employee yet. We are in numerous States so we are discussing this with our Labor Attorneys.[end edit]

[big_load]

Rob - as I understand it, Arizona changed the procedure to require pre-employment screening. The Federal Government sued Arizona claiming that AZ was interfering with Federal authority. The US Supreme Court on May 26, 2011 in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting ruled in Arizona's favor. That is why states like Alabama are adopting new Laws.

What I would have preferred is that the interested parties work for a change in the federal law, or challenge the federal law in court instead of enacting a state law that appears to contradict it. It may not be important to most employers in AZ and AL, but those who do business with the federal government are in a bind until administrative procedures and perhaps even the law catch up to the Supreme Court ruling. In this economic climate, it's just one more reason to postpone hiring until the dust settles.

[Al_HikesAZ]

or challenge the federal law in court instead of enacting a state law that appears to contradict it.

It doesn't just "appears to contradict it", the US Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona law is constitutional and supercedes those provisions of the Federal law. No need "to work for a change in the Federal law", the Supreme Court ruled that the States have this authority under the Federal Law as written. No need to "challenge the federal law in court", this Arizona law works within the framework of the Federal law as written to implement mechanisms drafted into the Federal law. Either Congress understood what they were doing when they wrote this law and so nothing needs to change, or Congress did not understand what they were doing when they wrote this law and everything needs to change. The Federal Government and more specifically the Department of Homeland Security is not allowed to enforce Regulations that have been declared unconstitutional. Such autocratic, bureaucratic arrogance will undermine the rule of law in the United States of America. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to climb down off my soapbox. Big-load - I respect and admire your intelligence. I am not "attacking" you. I'm attacking misperceptions as I perceive them.

P.S. I may have spoken inartfully when I said "pre-employment screening". As I understand it, the E-verify is used after "hiring" the Employee when they are filling out their paperwork, specifically their I-9, but before they have officially started work. So I guess they have been "employed" but haven't really started as an employee yet. We are in numerous States so we are discussing this with our Labor Attorneys.

[big_load]

P.S. I may have spoken inartfully when I said "pre-employment screening". The E-verify is used after "hiring" the Employee when they are filing out their paperwork, specifically their I-9, but before they have officially started work. So I guess they have been "employed" but haven't really started as an employee yet. We are in numerous States so we are discussing this with our Labor Attorneys.

Well, this is the crux for me. The timing of these events is the only thing I see as contradictory or problematic.

In any case, I appreciate your reasoning and don't doubt its main thrust. My immediate concern is not whether the federal regulations are legal or administered correctly, but whether employers can reasonably count on being found compliant without undue exposure to financial risk from either the government or unsuccessful job-seekers.

[Tough_Boots]

I wouldn't worry about employers being at risk. They aren't the one's we are apparently trying to detain since they can typically afford lawyers. Its the easy lock-ups that the prisons plan to make money off of. Notice, that CCA runs prisons in Arizona and Alabama and have put more than a little time, money, and effort into pushing these new laws. I've read more than a few articles about CCA's involvement in writing our recently passed laws in Arizona. I'm sure they can be linked to the new Alabama law as well. They also received a major contract in Georgia, which has also recently passed crazy anti-immigration laws.

[Jim]

When prisons are for profits, anyone can be a criminal.