Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Penalizing Businesses For Hiring Illegal Immigrants
Protesters in Phoenix rally against Arizona's new immigration law July 29, 2010. (AP)
PHOENIX — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers in the country illegally, buoying the hopes of supporters of state crackdowns on illegal immigration.
They predicted the ruling would lead to many other states passing laws that require employers to use the federal E-Verify system to check that workers aren't illegal immigrants. And some said the ruling bodes well for the prospects of a much broader and more controversial immigration law in Arizona, known as SB1070, to be found constitutional.
The state is appealing a ruling blocking that law from taking effect.
But others said it should not be read as a broad validation of such tactics. While they acknowledge that other states will now pass similar employer sanctions, they cautioned that the court did not make any sweeping endorsement of states' rights to enforce federal immigration laws.
"It's a very careful and narrowly reasoned opinion, so it doesn't really tip the court's hand one way or the other with respect to SB1070,' said Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who specializes in immigration law. "That being said, the court here is validating a state measure that implicates immigration enforcement. The court today has rejected an argument that the states have no business in immigration enforcement. That's off the table."
Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, a Republican who was a prime sponsor of the legislation that became the 2007 employer sanctions law, said his reaction to the ruling was "jubilation."
"This is not only good for Arizona, it's good for America," Pearce told The Associated Press. "Finally, American workers are treated the way they ought to be. We're going to put the profits-before-patriotism crowd in the back seat."
Pearce said the ruling bodes well for an eventual Supreme Court decision on SB1070.
"I'm very confident we'll win a 5-4 or possibly a 6-3 decision," he said pre-empted from enforcing federal law."
Both laws were written with the assistance of Kris Kobach, Kansas' secretary of state and a former law professor. He said they were constructed to only use federal immigration law definitions, and the ruling upholding the first could mean success for the second.______________________________________________________________
"That language will vastly assist the state in defending SB1070,' Kobach said.
Dozens of other states have taken up immigration-related measures since Arizona passed its first law. Most have gone nowhere, but several have passed laws similar to the one found constitutional on Thursday.
"So far Mississippi and South Carolina have followed Arizona in requiring E-Verify,' Kobach said. "Alabama is about to ... and I think you'll see many other states jumping on the bandwagon and requiring E-Verify."
Thursday's 5-3 ruling placed the court's five Republican-appointed justices on the side of the state and against the Chamber of Commerce, which challenged the law along with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said Arizona's employer sanctions law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states."
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Barack Obama's solicitor general.
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.
The Obama administration backed the challenge to the law. The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now Obama's Homeland Security secretary.
The employer sanctions law has been infrequently used. It was intended to diminish Arizona's role as the nation's hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. Employers found to have violated the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, praised the high court's decision. "Not only is this law constitutional, it is commonsense. American jobs should be preserved for Americans and legal workers," Smith said.
Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously upheld the law.
The ACLU's Cecillia Wang said the Supreme Court decision was disappointing, but narrow. "The decision has nothing to do with SB1070 or any other state and local immigration laws," said Wang, director of ACLU's immigrant rights project.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called the decision gratifying and said it upheld states' rights.
"Despite the Obama Administration's opposition at the U.S. Supreme Court, Arizona and all states are now free to take down the `Help Wanted' sign for illegal aliens in their states," she said in a statement. "Arizona's employer sanctions law allows the vast majority of businesses that want to play by the rules to comply with federal and state laws against hiring illegal aliens, and seeks to punish those employers who take advantage of the federal government's immigration failures."
Last month, a three-judge panel of that same appeals court upheld a trial judge's ruling blocking enforcement of parts of SB1070. The provisions that were blocked include a requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, must question a person's immigration status if officers have reasonable suspicion the person was in the country illegally.
Other provisions that are on hold include: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.
State officials have said they will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Brewer said she is hopeful the latest ruling means the high court will also uphold SB1070.
PG&E RATE HIKES : USE LESS , YOU PAY MORE!
So the state of California's most corrupt company wants to charge us more money to make up for the new meters that are supposed to make them more money. Look if YOU are trying to save energy DON'T DO IT ! The whole idea of the SMART MEETER was that you as a consumer could know how much energy you are using so YOU CAN reduce your energy intake , and control your COSTS . Now PG&E is loosing money because YOU the consumer got SMARTER than the MEETER and just pulled the PLUG .
"allowing PG&E to charge its customers more for electricity to make up for profits lost"... Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this qualify as EXTORTION? I don't feel like I made enough profit last quarter, either.. Who can I 'squeeze' to pad MY wallet some?.. Sickening.Once again the public is being taken for a ride. I am sure PG&E made a lot of money when they got rid of their meter readers. Where did these people end up? They probably are on unemployment while PG&E now is allowed to suck their customers dry by getting another rate increase to make money for their shareholders. This is, as the rest of you state, just "BS"! Perhaps there should be a public takeover of the "Public" Utilities. I am sure that the State Regulatory Comission is in the pockets of these "Public" utilities which are not "public" but private money makers for their shareholders!
Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s residential customers could be slapped with new monthly fees, and its most energy-efficient and lowest-income customers could face additional fee hikes.
The California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to rule Thursday on the company’s proposal to charge all of its residential electricity customers a flat fee of at least $2.40 per month.
The company is also proposing to increase rates for customers who use the smallest amounts of electricity, in an effort to reduce the bills of big energy users, such as residents of energy-inefficient McMansions in the far stretches of the East Bay.
After California's energy crisis, when electricity prices skyrocketed early last decade, the state ordered PG&E to reduce prices for low-income residents and customers who use the least electricity. To subsidize the reduced prices, rates are higher for customers who consume a lot of electricity.
Now, after 10 years, PG&E is appealing to regulators to allow it to close that price gap.
The California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to rule Thursday on the company’s proposal to charge all of its residential electricity customers a flat fee of at least $2.40 per month.
The company is also proposing to increase rates for customers who use the smallest amounts of electricity, in an effort to reduce the bills of big energy users, such as residents of energy-inefficient McMansions in the far stretches of the East Bay.
After California's energy crisis, when electricity prices skyrocketed early last decade, the state ordered PG&E to reduce prices for low-income residents and customers who use the least electricity. To subsidize the reduced prices, rates are higher for customers who consume a lot of electricity.
Now, after 10 years, PG&E is appealing to regulators to allow it to close that price gap.
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12vvH)
Use Less, Pay More under PG&E's Proposed Rate Hike
Company wants to raise rates for those who use the least electricity to lower bills for biggest customers
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12vvH)
Use Less, Pay More under PG&E's Proposed Rate Hike
Company wants to raise rates for those who use the least electricity to lower bills for biggest customers
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12vvH)
The California Public Utilities Commission is poised to approve a rate proposal from Pacific Gas and Electric that would jack up rates for moderate energy users and the Central Valley's poorest and most vulnerable in order to give a handful of mainly wealthy customers a discount. Amazingly, this is being pitched with a straight face as something that will give valley residents a break.
The CPUC has issued draft decisions that propose to grant three out of four of PG&E's main residential rate proposals, each of which would raise electricity rates for low-income customers and customers with low or moderate levels of energy use. These rate changes could get final approval as soon as May 26.
One proposal would immediately add a $2.40 monthly customer charge to every low-income customer's bill and a $3 customer charge for all other customers. Perhaps most shocking is PG&E's proposal to create a brand-new higher-rate category, dubbed "Tier 3," for low-income customers who qualify for reduced rates under the CARE, or California Alternative Rates for Energy, program. Astonishingly, these new higher rates would target customers with moderate energy use, kicking in when they use roughly 30 percent less power than the average customer.
This proposed change would add an additional $18 monthly to the summer bills of customers in the valley who use a moderate amount of energy. That may not seem like much, but the CARE customers -- whose annual income must be no more than $44,400 for a family of four -- are already struggling. Since September 2010, more than 10 percent of PG&E's CARE accounts, more than 100,000 customers, were more than 90 days behind on their bills.
While an increase of $20.40 per month seems manageable to many of us, these families already struggle each month to choose between keeping the lights on or buying groceries, paying for medicines or having enough money to get to work. The new rates would make already difficult choices nearly impossible, inevitably leaving thousands of valley families without power during the hot summer months that are nearly upon us. Customers in cooler coastal areas wouldn't be hit as hard, but low-income customers in these areas would still see their monthly bills increase by at least $8. In contrast, all of PG&E's rate proposals would lower rates for customers who have the most extreme level of power usage. The Utility Reform Network has already given the CPUC empirical evidence showing that the high levels of energy use that would get a break under the new rates are related to maintaining large homes and the heavy use of energy-guzzling appliances, swimming pools and other luxuries.
These high-end users have already received big rate cuts. Last summer, as a result of another CPUC proceeding, these customers received a rate reduction of almost 10 cents per kilowatt-hour for their high-level usage (above 300 percent of the baseline usage level that covers essential energy needs).
Contrary to the spin, the proposed new PG&E rates won't provide relief for most electricity users in the valley, most of whom would actually face higher bills. They would literally rob Peter to pay Paul -- when Peter is saving energy and struggling to make ends meet, Paul sits back enjoying his swimming pool and 65-inch flat-screen TV -- and raise rates for the majority.
The CPUC should reject this proposal, which would discourage energy conservation and punish our most vulnerable neighbors.
No comments:
Post a Comment