Immigration

Arizona Immigration Law Unites Obama and the Chamber of Commerce

|

The Wall Street Journal's Jess Bravin has a good overview of Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, which the Supreme Court is hearing today. At issue is whether federal immigration law preempts Arizona's harsh statute penalizing employers for hiring "unauthorized aliens." As Bravin notes, some unusual alliances have been formed:

The [Chamber of Commerce] has teamed up against the Legal Arizona Workers Act with allies including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Service Employees International Union and a Latino group that Justice Sonia Sotomayor once helped lead. The Obama administration is sending the government's top litigator to assist the chamber's lawyer.

In the other corner is notorious anti-immigration leader Russell Pearce, the author of the state law:

Mr. Pearce, 63 years old, is a former sheriff's deputy first elected to the state legislature in 2000. "I was a tea partier before the tea party was cool," he said.

While Democrats are his principal adversary, Mr. Pearce also cited fellow Republicans he said carry water for a business community that puts "profits over patriotism." The day will come, he said, when "these folks are going to have to decide, when they take their money from big business, which side they really are on."

Read all about it here. For more on Pearce, don't miss Kerry Howley's 2008 feature "The One-Man Wall: How a single Arizona legislator's obsession has changed immigration policy for the worse."

NEXT: Cancun Climate Platitudes and Predictions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Threadjack: The Dragon/Falcon 9 launch appears to be going very well. The Dragon spacecraft has separated from the booster and is in orbit. With a successful splashdown, we may be seeing America’s next manned spacecraft at work.

    This is so friggin’ awesome.

  2. “The [Chamber of Commerce] has teamed up against the Legal Arizona Workers Act with allies including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Service Employees International Union and a Latino group that Justice Sonia Sotomayor once helped lead. The Obama administration is sending the government’s top litigator to assist the chamber’s lawyer.”

    The Chamber of Commerce may have realized that an employer should be free to hire anybody he or she wants.

    There’s no such thing as “American” jobs or jobs that belong to “Americans.” That’s nothing more than good ol’ [and fallacious] merchantilism rearing its ugly head, once again.

    1. But…but…they’re illegal! Since they’re illegal, it’s ok to have checkpoints well inside the US that violate everyone’s rights. Because we just can’t have them damn foreigners taking all the jobs we won’t do.

      THEY TOOK UR JERBS

    2. I don’t think “employers should be free to do whatever they want” is a new belief for the frickin Chamber of Commerce.

    3. The businesses in the Chamber of Commerce should get together and announce that they will no longer fight the law.

      Instead, they will close shop in the US and move their businesses to Mexico.

      Of course, that would never happen, which is a shame, because the stupidity level of the TOOK UR JERBS crowd would diminish rapidly.

  3. The Obama administration is sending the government’s top litigator to assist the chamber’s lawyer.

    I hope Obama’s attorney doesn’t get his hands dirty from the Chamber’s secret foreign money.

    1. ^^^FTW – and I’m against the AZ law.

  4. While Democrats are his principal adversary, Mr. Pearce also cited fellow Republicans he said carry water for a business community that puts “profits over patriotism.”

    That’s because profits trump stupidity. Also: IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, ASSHOLE!!!

    1. I proudly put profits over patriotism. It is a symptom of thinking.

      1. I have a hard time, sometimes, telling the differences between the two.

        Opposition to making things pointlessly unprofitable–that’s what my patriotism is all about!

        1. Freedom is just a bunch of people being allowed act in ways they think will be profitable. I am patriotic to the extent that my country allows that. If another country was better on individual rights, I would go there. Alas America is still #1 on individual rights even though that’s not saying much.

  5. Mr. Pearce also cited fellow Republicans he said carry water for a business community that puts “profits over patriotism.” The day will come, he said, when “these folks are going to have to decide, when they take their money from big business, which side they really are on.”

    Isn’t this butting up pretty closely to the definition of fascism? Patriotism over profits, I mean.

    1. I thought fascism was a “making patriotism pay” program.

    2. Interesting: the “profits over patriotism” line sounds like it was lifted from John McCain during one of the Republican primary debates, applied against Romney.

    3. To be fair, though, even if the immigrants were as much of a problem as the most hyperbolic know-nothing claimed, the people who value their votes and labor over the well being of their fellow citizens would be doing the same thing. Just because the people opposing them are assholes doesn’t mean the CoC is pursuing anything other than self-interest as policy.

  6. The day will come, he said, when “these folks are going to have to decide, when they take their money from big business, which side they really are on.”

    Why isn’t this guy living in a tarpaper shack in the desert and subsisting on lizards?

    1. Would that make him Carlos Castaneda or Don Juan?

    2. What a motherfucker Obama is. I mean, he’s opening himself up to an avalanche of hypocrisy allegations there if someone wants to go through his own donor list.

      That little base-appeasing line is going to cost him a great deal with everyone else. And this dolt was supposed to be politically skilled?

      1. That wasn’t Obama…

  7. There is no credible economic case against immigration. But counting cultural externalities, affirmative action, criminal proclivities of Hispanics compared to Whites, the constant barrage of adverse propaganda directed at Whites (racist racist racist racist!), the importation of millions of low-skilled, uneducated Hispanic day laborers is a recipe for disaster.

    And there is also a libertarian case against immigration using property rights in a second best case: The state, with its anti-discrimination laws, control of property adjacent almost all private property, affirmative action, and welfare enforces FORCED INTEGRATION. The transaction is not limited to, as alluded in comments here often, between employer and foreign employee. To make that relationship the only one that counts, you would have to get rid of anti-discrimination laws, privatize roads, end welfare transfers and eliminate affirmative action.

    1. Re: Contemplationist,

      […]the importation of millions of low-skilled, uneducated Hispanic day laborers is a recipe for disaster.

      Under the same argument, a case could be made for the forced sterilization of uneducated, underskilled American women so they won’t add millions of uneducated, low-skill workers 18 years hence.

      And there is also a libertarian case against immigration using property rights in a second best case: The state, with its anti-discrimination laws, control of property adjacent almost all private property, affirmative action, and welfare enforces FORCED INTEGRATION.

      That’s an argument against the Welfare state, not against immigration.

      To make that relationship the only one that counts, you would have to get rid of anti-discrimination laws, privatize roads, end welfare transfers and eliminate affirmative action.

      Well, you are already asking for government to respect property rights, as all of the above are affronts to those rights. However, NEGATING the right of an employer or of a renter to make business with WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE, is ALSO an affront to property rights.

      1. No its not. Its a case against welfare + affirmative action + public roads and land in general + anti-discrimination laws. Open borders libertarians conveniently forget that the power of property also includes EXCLUDING people.

        1. And closed borders libertarians conveniently forget that government dominion is not at all like private property.

      2. No, you are proposing that aggression be committed against those who want nothing to do with certain immigrants. You propose that their property right to EXCLUDE people and NOT DEAL WITH THEM be violated. The relationship b/w employer and foreign employee IS NOT ENOUGH OR COMPLETE! for a libertarian analysis! You must take into account the aggression against the property rights of those who do NOT wish to deal with immigrants being forced to, apart from all the other crap – AA, anti-disc. etc etc.

        So no, its not a straightforward answer. I wish to do away with all those laws, and get a Rothbardian property regime. However, for FAR TOO LONG, libertarians who are for open borders have only dealt with the weak case against immigration from conservatives or welfarist liberals.

        Start dealing with the tough cases. Or at least respect the fact that its not a clear-cut answer as you presume.

        http://www.cis.org/Libertarian…..mmigration

        1. You linked into the Center for Immigration Studies? Really?

          Oh, I forgot, you’re a mouthing-breathing, tribalist cretin.

          Carry on.

          1. Even if I were Satan’s spawn, you would have to deal with the libertarian arguments within that article. But of course you are nothing but a stupid, commissar indistinguishable from the sub-species that populate dailykos or free republic.

            I expect better from Reason commenters. But I havent seen you around so I won’t insult them by associating you with them.

            And I’ve linked to a Hans Hermann Hoppe article – the anarcho-capitalist.

            1. I expect better from Reason commenters.

              New here? At H & R, civility consists of not speculating, at length about another commenters taste in barnyard sex partners.

              1. Lol nah. not new. But i know I don’t fuck sheep if thats where this discussion is headed. I’m jus sayin though that before that usually happens only when theres trolling – a.la Max or shrike or some random drive-by hater. if there’s a logical argument to be countered, you guys usually do it.

            2. If you want to make your point effectively? (here or any where else), stay away from ALL CAPS and try not to be so easily trolled.

              1. Thanks, I got carried away by the casual dismissal of OM. He’s probably not seen the forced integration argument before.

            3. Even if I were Satan’s spawn, you would have to deal with the libertarian arguments within that article.

              Ah, but in this case the Devil isn’t accurately quoting scripture. Those supposedly “libertarian” arguments are merely ideological transvestism.

              But of course you are nothing but a stupid, [sic] commissar indistinguishable from the sub-species that populate dailykos or free republic.

              “Sub-species”? Your hobbyhorse is showing. I’d have more respect for you if you flat-out admitted you hate the “Brown hordes” instead of hiding behind this euphemistic “human biodiversity studies”/”scientific racism” bullshit.

              Does Anarcho-capitalism allow for one to associate or not associate with whomever one wishes? Of course, but it doesn’t preclude me from calling out bigoted tribalists as the ignorant assholes they are.

          2. You linked into the Center for Immigration Studies? Really?

            Sez the Reason subscriber. *smirk!*

        2. Re: Contemplationist,

          No, you are proposing that aggression be committed against those who want nothing to do with certain immigrants.

          Nothing I wrote here or have ever wrote would suggest I support imposing a relationship between two people.

          You propose that their property right to EXCLUDE people and NOT DEAL WITH THEM be violated.

          I didn’t. I merely pointed out that you cannot ask for trampling someone’s property rights purportedly to protect someone else’s property rights.

          The relationship b/w employer and foreign employee IS NOT ENOUGH OR COMPLETE! for a libertarian analysis!

          Of course it’s complete. You just want to have 6-degree of separation analysis. You’re the one being a crackpot, not I.

          You must take into account the aggression against the property rights of those who do NOT wish to deal with immigrants being forced to[…]

          I don’t need to do such a thing, because that’s an appeal to externalities (a fallacious and crackpot idea.) I don’t need to analyse the consequences of placing burglar alarms in my house like, for instance, the potential burglarizing of my neighbor, when deciding to purchase a burglar alarm: I AM NOT MY “BROTHER’S” KEEPER!

          Same with hiring – I don’t need to analyse any potential “stakeholder” [stakeholder theory being another crackpot idea] when hiring Betino Perez to mow my lawn.

          1. Written. Ever written. Sorry – I was channeling a typical Public School teacher.

        3. I wish to do away with all those laws, and get a Rothbardian property regime. However, for FAR TOO LONG, libertarians who are for open borders have only dealt with the weak case against immigration from conservatives or welfarist liberals.

          You know, it truly boggles the mind how people such as Rothbard and Hoppe who profess to be anarchists grant government so much power over the territory it claims.

          Here is the gist of the argument from your link…

          As every product movement reflects an underlying agreement between sender and receiver, so all movements of immigrants into and within an anarcho-capitalist society are the result of an agreement between the immigrant and one or a series of receiving domestic property owners. Hence, even if the anarcho-capitalist model is ultimately rejected ? and if for realism’s sake the existence of a government and of “public” (in addition to private) goods and property is assumed ? it brings into clear relief what a government’s immigration policy would have to be, if and insofar as this government derived its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the “people” and was viewed as the outgrowth of an agreement or “social contract” (as is the case with all modern, post-monarchical governments, of course). A “popular” government which assumed as its primary task the protection of its citizens and their property (the production of domestic security) would surely want to preserve, rather than abolish, this no-forced-integration feature of anarcho-capitalism!

          Which is more likely:

          1. Everyone in an anarchist society universally and unanimously disallows passage, residence, and employment to immigrants?

          2. At least one person or enterprise in an anarchist society offers passage, residence, or employment to immigrants?

          Why do people who believe themselves to be individualist anarchists think that government is right to presume (1) over (2)? It is beyond ridiculous.

  8. Would that make him Carlos Castaneda or Don Juan?

    Walter Brennan.

  9. Just for the record, I’m an open borders guy myself, and even I think it’s fundamentally unfair to make state taxpayers foot the bill for an expense the federal government itself is arguing is solely a federal responsibility.

    How can they argue out of one side of their mouths that immigration is a federal issue that states shouldn’t be allowed to enforce–and out of the other side of their mouths argue that the federal government shouldn’t be required to reimburse states for the billions in state taxpayer money they spend on incarcerating illegal aliens and providing them with social services?

    If illegal immigration is a federal responsibility, then it’s the federal government’s responsibility to pay for it.

    It is fundamentally unfair to state taxpayers to make them pay for a federal responsibility.

    1. Re: Ken Shultz,

      If illegal immigration is a federal responsibility, then it’s the federal government’s responsibility to pay for it.

      Oh, man – please don’t give them any more ideas.

      1. This is part of the reason we’re having so much fuss!

        People are a hell of a lot more tolerant of each other when they’re not being forced to pay for each other. If it weren’t for the billions in social services California taxpayers are forced to spend?

        I wouldn’t give a damn about how many illegal immigrants there were.

        Arizona’s law came up just as schools were laying off teachers, cutting back to four days a week…

        If there are school districts where half the students are the children of illegal immigrants–and half the teachers are getting laid off? Then it’s no wonder we’re seeing a lot of resentment against illegal aliens.

        If the federal government were taking care of its responsibility–a responsibility it’s claiming is solely it’s own in this case? Then Arizona’s immigration law probably wouldn’t have had anywhere near as much support as it has.

        This is what happens when the federal government is doing everything except it’s job–we start losing our rights. The federal government isn’t doing its job–so now I don’t have the right to hire whoever I want to mow my lawn. The federal government isn’t doing its job–so now maybe people get extra police scrutiny because they look Mexican.

        Why? Because the federal government isn’t taking care of its own responsibilities.

        1. Re: Ken Shultz,

          If there are school districts where half the students are the children of illegal immigrants–and half the teachers are getting laid off? Then it’s no wonder we’re seeing a lot of resentment against illegal aliens.

          The problem is not the immigrants, is Compulsory Education – Da Law sez your children belong to Da State, whether you are here in the US with a visa, without a visa, or you were born here. The resentment is clearly MISPLACED.

          Also, migrants pay taxes as well, or do you think you are the only one being fleeced at gunpoint?

          1. I don’t remember saying they didn’t pay taxes–although I get the idea a lot of them don’t pay state income tax.

            Regardless, my beef is with the federal government–not the immigrants. If foreign immigrants are the fed’s responsibility, then they need to reimburse Arizona’s taxpayers for the money the state spends on that federal responsibility.

            Arizona’s taxpayers make an easy target for people living in Massachusetts. Paying for their own kids is tough enough when the economy takes a dip–why should the people of Arizona have to pay for Mexico’s children too?

            No one should be surprised to see the State of Arizona pick up the slack if the federal government isn’t doing its job. And if immigration is exclusively a federal responsibility, then forking out for immigrants shouldn’t exclusively be the burden of Arizona’s taxpayers…

            No matter where they came from.

  10. The feds have a tough argument on this. Federal immigration law doesn’t explicitly prohibit state laws on immigration, so they have to argue that the state law conflicts with federal law.

    Don’t see that. The state is merely imposing a penalty on activity that is (also) illegal under federal law. That’s not a conflict.

  11. I suppose that fixing the immigration laws is just too obvious a solution?

      1. Something involving land mines and pit bulls comes to mind…

      2. No open borders; large immigration quota when the economy is good, make it eaiser to become a citizen, stop favoring Mexico, A strong border control, integrationist policies…

        There are plenty of people who want to become Americans, let ’em in.

      3. New class of visa with no quota, no restrictions on employment, explicitly no individualized welfare, and explicitly no path to citizenship. The only reason it may be refused is failure to pass a background check.

        Other visas can remain unchanged. The difference is that applicants may wait for them in the US while carrying the unlimited visa. “Amnesty” is applying for and receiving the unlimited visa.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.