U.S. Supreme Court upholds Arizona illegal-immigration law

[Little-Acorn]

As usual, the law-abiding justices (this time including weathervane Kennedy) voted with the Constitution, while the others carefully ignored it and cited unconstitutional "justification" for their dissent.

This is a good start, and portends good things for when Arizona's SB1070 comes before the court in the future.

Prepare yourself for the usual screams of "RACISM!!!" from the usual hysterics unable to prove any.

-------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/26/high-court-upholds-arizona-law-penalizing-employers-illegal-immigrant-workers/

High Court Upholds Arizona Law Penalizing Employers Over Illegal Immigrant Workers

Published May 26, 2011
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona's law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.

By a 5-3 vote, the court said Thursday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

The decision upholding the validity of the 2007 law comes as the state is appealing a ruling that blocked key components of a second, more controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law. Thursday's decision applies only to business licenses and does not signal how the high court might rule if the other law comes before it.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the 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.

The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now the administration's Homeland Security secretary.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[truthmatters]

I dont think you remember its been a long time part of the democratic position to want the hold the EMPLOYERS responsible for the hiring instead of merely going after the individuals.

[Gaffer]

I dont think you remember its been a long time part of the democratic position to want the hold the EMPLOYERS responsible for the hiring instead of merely going after the individuals.

It's been a long time democratic position to do nothing and not enforce the laws. And they have gotten many republicans in name only to go along with that.

[johnwk]

SEE: SCOTUS Upholds AZ Law Imposing Penalties On Employers (http://unitedsc.org/2011/05/27/scotus-upholds-az-law-imposing-penalties-on-employers/)


Published: May 26, 2011



WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that imposes harsh penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

___cut___


The challenge to the Arizona law that was the subject of Thursday’s decision was brought by a coalition of business and civil liberties groups, with support from the Obama administration.


They said the law in question, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, conflicted with federal immigration policy.


Now, just for the record, let us review our founding fathers regarding immigration and naturalization.


The big lie, which Eric Holder and his puppet big media have been promoting is, that the federal government has supreme authority to deal with “immigration” and thus, exclusive authority over aliens who have invaded a State’s borders. They claim the exclusive power is found in Article VI, clause 2 of our federal Constitution which declares:


“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”


But the above “supremacy” only applies to those powers specifically enumerated and delegated by the States to the federal government in our written federal Constitution. And the irrefutable fact is, there is no power granted to Congress to regulate “immigration” mentioned in our Constitution! More importantly, a reading of the debates of our founding fathers involving our nation’s Rule of Naturalization in 1790 established beyond any doubt, the various States specifically avoided granting a sweeping power over immigration to Congress. And, the limited power granted is over “Naturalization” which is stated as follows: Congress shall have power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … (Article 1, Section 8)

The Constitution also states The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States (Article IV, Section 2)

NOTE: It is important to keep in mind that prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution citizenship was bestowed under state law. And upon the adoption of our existing Constitution, as stated above, the Citizens of each State became entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. However, once the Constitution was ratified, the federal government was granted exclusive authority To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization …

Now, let us determine our founding fathers use of the word “Naturalization” and if there is a clear distinction between the word “Naturalization” as distinguished from “immigration” which is not even mentioned in our Constitution!


REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [a power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576)


And REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expreses the very intentions for which the power [Naturalization] was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1148 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)


In fact, the power delegated to Congress over Naturalization was to preclude a State from granting citizenship on easy terms and allowing undesirables to gain citizenship, and those citizens then moving to another state and upsetting local customs or become disruptive to the general welfare of the State. The founders wanted to make certain that those who obtained citizenship would be productive citizens and loyal to America! And thus, the power was granted to Congress To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization… But, no power was ever granted to our federal government over the various States original policing powers dealing with immigration and aliens who enter their borders, and especially not over aliens who have entered our country or a state illegally!.


The only expressed authority regarding “migration“ found in our Constitution is Article 1, Section 9 which declares:


The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. And this provision was of course the precursor to ending slavery in America, and not a grant of power to the federal government to enter a state and meddle in a state‘s policing powers designed to promote its internal general welfare ___ a power specifically retained by the States!

From the above we learn that, “migration” is the act by which people move from one place to another, while “Naturalization” is the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. We also learn that the rules by which a foreign national may become a citizen of the united States have been entrusted to Congress and done so for a specific reason ___ to ensure the general welfare of the states against undesirable aliens becoming citizens. So, while Obama may pretend that the federal government has authority to determine immigration policy within a State‘s borders, our Constitution is very clear in granting Congress a power to establish how an alien may become a citizen of the united states which has nothing to do with the State of Arizona, or any State in the union, from dealing with aliens who have entered their state illegally. The power over this subject matter has never been relinquished by the various united States and remains in tact as it was prior to the adoption of our Constitution which declares in crystal clear language: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment


JWK


America we have a problem! We have a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES (http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/members-of-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-is-your-representative-a-member/) who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the transferring of America’s technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

[red states rule]

I dont think you remember its been a long time part of the democratic position to want the hold the EMPLOYERS responsible for the hiring instead of merely going after the individuals.

If that is the case why need Reid and Pelosi yank E-Verify from the "stimulus" bill?

Seems Dems WANT illegals in the country so they can their vote of Election Day

[revelarts]

See i have mixed thoughts on this issue.
Some of them a primitive form of what JohnWk wrote above. Meddling Feds and states rights. That mixed in with employer rights, workers rights and human right to peacefully travel and work in general. Complicated by public funding of school and health and other services and taxation local/state/federal levels.

there a lot of factors to deal with many I haven't dug into to deeply. Thanks JohnWk for the post.

My knee jerk reaction to the whole immigration problem is that it should be divided up into smaller chunks since it's gotten so outta hand.

the 1st is the criminals among the illegal.
A person who's generally law abiding and self supporting may or may not be a problem and is different IMO than a thief,drug dealer, human trafficker, rapist, murder, embezzlers or conmen who should get Swift and Sure treatment. There's no reason for the State, local or Feds to coddle Anyone that they've found guilty. They should be deported If on any level they've committed capital crimes. If deportation is problematic and we want a GOOD use for Gitmo there's one IMO. Bargram sounds good. There are other Island bases that would be great for that type of thing. Seems to me that might be a deterrent if you knew you wouldn't be put in some Arizona prison with all you friends but be flown to some unknown foreign country if you can't get back to your own.

That's one level. And in my mind it seems that could be Bi-partisan. No one wants the hard core criminals around.

The next level would be the non-working heavily gov't dependent illegals

Then the working, Community contributing illegals.

I as far as crimes go, sneaking into a country to get a job doesn't strike me as a such a bad one. From a purely capitalist POV Ayn Rand would probably approve of the effort and consider the worker a hero for fighting the gov't to get work and actually produce something of value.

people want to weigh the strain on community resources to the amount of value illegals produce. And say therefore they must go.( "plus they are in the country illegally") OK maybe, But If they are raising families how long are you going to project out those numbers? the public education (such as it is) Is producing hopefully English speaking Americans that are able to get and CREATE higher paying jobs and be more integrated in the U.S. no matter how many foreign flags mom and dad are waving today. Does the public investment now out weigh the return 15 20 years from now? Can we afford to be short term thinkers here?

I don't know.

It seem to me the criminal element need to dealt with DECISIVELY.
But the others, with a more thoughtfully approach. What that is I'm not so sure. We needs God's wisdom here, this country has grown and thrived through free immigration it's not comfortable always but we manage and I think our country is better off for it. English needs to be mandatory in schools. We are an English speaking country. If I move to Mexico I'll learn Spanish. Not lobby the gov't for more English.

[red states rule]

See i have mixed thoughts on this issue.
Some of them a primitive form of what JohnWk wrote above. Meddling Feds and states rights that mixed in with employer rights, workers rights and human right to peacefully travel and work in general. Complicated by public funding of school and health and other services and taxation local/state/federal levels.

there a lot of factors to deal with many I haven't dug into to deeply. Thanks JohnWk for the post.

My knee jerk reaction to whole immigration problem is that it should be divided up into smaller chunks since it's gotten so outta hand.

the 1st is the criminals among the illegal.
A person who's generally law abiding and self supporting may or may not be a problem and is different IMO than a thief,drug dealer, human trafficker, rapist, murder, embezzlers or conmen who should get Swift and Sure treatment. There's no reason for the State, local or Feds to coddle Anyone that they've found guilty. They should be deported If on any level they've committed capital crimes. If deportation is problematic and we want a GOOD use for Gitmo there's one IMO. Bargram sounds good. There are other Island bases that would be great for that type of thing. Seems to me that might be a deterrent if you knew you wouldn't be put in some Arizona prison with all you friends but be flown to some unknown foreign country if you can't get back to your own.

That's one level. And in my mind it seems that could be Bi-partisan. No one wants the hard core criminals around.

The next level would be the non-working heavily gov't dependent illegals

Then the working, Community contributing illegals.

I as far as crimes go, sneaking into a country to get a job doesn't strike me as a such a bad one. From a purely capitalist POV Ayn Rand would probably approve of the effort and consider the worker a hero for fighting the gov't to get work and actually produce something of value.

people want to weigh the strain on community resources to the amount of value illegals produce. And say therefore they must go.( "plus they are in the country illegally") OK maybe, But If they are raising families how long are you going to project out those numbers? the public education (such as it is) Is producing hopefully English speaking Americans that are able to get and CREATE higher paying jobs and be more integrated in the U.S. no matter how many foreign flags mom and dad are waving today. Does the public investment now out weigh the return 15 20 years from now? Can we afford to be short term thinkers here?

I don't know.

It seem to me the criminal element need to dealt with DECISIVELY.
But the others, with a more thoughtfully approach. What that is I'm not so sure. We needs God's wisdom here, this country has grown and thrived through free immigration it's not comfortable always but we manage and I think our country is better off for it. English needs to be mandatory in schools. We are an English speaking country. If I move to Mexico I'll learn Spanish. Not lobby the gov't for more English.

Rev, all of the illegals are criminals. By being her they are breaking our laws

Libs rant about companies hiring them, but they ignore it was Dems who made it harder to check on them because the Dems yanked E-Verify from the so called stimulus bill

Dems want them here. Dems need them here, Dems want their vote and political support

We are getting screwed Rev and being bled dry by the cost of these illegals

and Dems and some RINO's do not give a damn

[ArizonaRed]

Dems want them here and they want to legalize them so that they can vote for the Dems.

Regarding Arizona's Illegal Alien law (I refuse to call them immigrants), if you look at the AZ law and the federal law side by side you can see that the federal law goes further than the AZ law. They are practically word for word match, however.
AZ just wants to be able to enforce the law since Obummer refuses to do so.

It's a war zone down anywhere south of Tucson. Rancher's cannot live on their own land for their family's safety and you will see warning signs on the highways between Tucson and all the borders warning people not to get off the road because of illegal crossings and drug cartels. I wish they would bring some of our troops in Afghanistan back and position them at the border with rights to shoot to kill.
A rancher is Southern Arizona has just lost his ranch because the kangaroo courts awarded it to the illegal trash that got hurt on his property.
Sickening state of affairs. You'd have to see it to believe it but the media won't show it.

[red states rule]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/S_bBXsAeF6I/AAAAAAAAHg8/pLwUcse_W7o/s1600/immigrationQ-7680632.jpg

[johnwk]

See i have mixed thoughts on this issue.
Some of them a primitive form of what JohnWk wrote above. Meddling Feds and states rights. That mixed in with employer rights, workers rights and human right to peacefully travel and work in general. Complicated by public funding of school and health and other services and taxation local/state/federal levels.



You are absolutely correct about the issue being one with great complications attached to it. However, we ought to all agree to working within the framework of our constitutions, state and federal, to avoid lawlessness, anarchy and mob rule government which has already taken a foothold in America and is destroying our nation from within.

Instead of the America people embracing the big tent system given to us by our founding fathers, also known as federalism, in which the people of each state are to be free to determine their own destiny and decide their own internal state matters, including homosexual marriages and whatever else floats their boat, extremists now seek to impose their personal whims and fancies upon the entire united States’ population using the force of the federal government, when the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers were summarized as follows:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.___ Federalist No. 45

This does not mean the people of America cannot form a consensus and forbid certain activities throughout the united states found to be morally repugnant as slavery. Indeed, the people of the united States have abolished slavery, and done so via the prescribed manner outlined in Article V.

In any event we still have a choice, either yielding to the growing threat of mob rule government and anarchy, or, we can agree to work within the framework of our constitutions, state and federal, and work to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s big tent system!


JWK


Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

[red states rule]

You are absolutely correct about the issue being one with great complications attached to it. However, we ought to all agree to working within the framework of our constitutions, state and federal, to avoid lawlessness, anarchy and mob rule government which has already taken a foothold in America and is destroying our nation from within.

Instead of the America people embracing the big tent system given to us by our founding fathers, also known as federalism, in which the people of each state are to be free to determine their own destiny and decide their own internal state matters, including homosexual marriages and whatever else floats their boat, extremists now seek to impose their personal whims and fancies upon the entire united States’ population using the force of the federal government, when the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers were summarized as follows:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.___ Federalist No. 45

This does not mean the people of America cannot form a consensus and forbid certain activities throughout the united states found to be morally repugnant as slavery. Indeed, the people of the united States have abolished slavery, and done so via the prescribed manner outlined in Article V.

In any event we still have a choice, either yielding to the growing threat of mob rule government and anarchy, or, we can agree to work within the framework of our constitutions, state and federal, and work to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s big tent system!


JWK


Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

I can sum up what needs to be done much easier

Enfore the damn laws already on the books. Secure our border. Then deal with the illegals who are already here

[fj1200]

Were there immigration laws in 1790? Hmmm.

[red states rule]

Were there immigration laws in 1790? Hmmm.

and your point is?

Please do not tell me you support illegals coming here, killing our citizens, and sucking state and federal budgets dry

[revelarts]

....
It's a war zone down anywhere south of Tucson. Rancher's cannot live on their own land for their family's safety and you will see warning signs on the highways between Tucson and all the borders warning people not to get off the road because of illegal crossings and drug cartels. I wish they would bring some of our troops in Afghanistan back and position them at the border with rights to shoot to kill.
A rancher is Southern Arizona has just lost his ranch because the kangaroo courts awarded it to the illegal trash that got hurt on his property.
Sickening state of affairs. You'd have to see it to believe it but the media won't show it.

The Courts are real problem. If they won't stand in AZ then there's not much left but for the Gov to start firing some. Drug money is a cancer. and it's not only illegals getting rich off of it we better understand that.

But if the courts would work and If the Feds would back it up
my level one plan could have some effect.
Rendition a few hundred killers and drug dealers to "formally" secret prisons in Eastern Europe. And as you say let the military come home patrol the boarder. and protect the boarder towns and ranches. but the boarder is not 100 miles in.



JWK
Your preaching to the choir here. I'm on broad with the constitution. However much of a loss cause it may be. Democracts don't want it, Republicans really don't want it either. people who do want it to seriously are called crazy. But I've been called worse so i don't mind so much. But many others find it hard to stand against the tribe and with the constitution. Many after they realize what the consttuion really says aren't that comfortable with it. we all have to give up to many goodies as well as the "prestiage" of being a world bully ....I mean world power.

[revelarts]

and your point is?

Please do not tell me you support illegals coming here, killing our citizens,

stop right here.

Quick trials, convictions and off to Gitmo



sucking state and federal budgets dry

that's another question. And may have long term bennies. Maybe not . that's an open question. a serious one. but debateble.

-------

As far as those EVIL BOTTOM FEEDER DEMS JUST WANTING the VOTES.
Well yes they want the votes and
Those CAPITALIST SCUMBAGS just want a bunch of cheap or semi-slave labor.
Those guys are probably Republicans when it suits them. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a few have given some donations to those vote monger dems to stir this issue in there financially favor.

[fj1200]

and your point is?

Please do not tell me you support illegals coming here, killing our citizens, and sucking state and federal budgets dry

I was just diggin' at JWK. ;)

While I don't support illegals coming here I don't blame them either, their countries are generally festering places where freedoms are not respected nor honored. We welcomed every East German who made it over the wall and I see little difference from their point of view.

I also don't support our own citizens killing our citizens and sucking budgets dry which is why the problem is largely of our own making rather than what they are doing to us.

[Kathianne]

I was just diggin' at JWK. ;)

While I don't support illegals coming here I don't blame them either, their countries are generally festering places where freedoms are not respected nor honored. We welcomed every East German who made it over the wall and I see little difference from their point of view.

I also don't support our own citizens killing our citizens and sucking budgets dry which is why the problem is largely of our own making rather than what they are doing to us.

Until the government actually minds the borders, illegals are going to keep coming. It is a security issue, especially from the South. I am in favor of the laws to heavily fine businesses that show a pattern of hiring illegals.

With that said, I am also in favor of upping the number of legal immigrants from countries that have been the sources of the illegals, give people the chance to enter legally.

[fj1200]

Until the government actually minds the borders, illegals are going to keep coming. It is a security issue, especially from the South. I am in favor of the laws to heavily fine businesses that show a pattern of hiring illegals.

With that said, I am also in favor of upping the number of legal immigrants from countries that have been the sources of the illegals, give people the chance to enter legally.

Yup, I would not be opposed to a program that allows foreign workers to sell the property they have in their labor ;) by registering in their home country to come and work for a period of time. We, rightly, allow high-tech foreign workers to come and work but criminalize those from the south that seek the same opportunity.

I think it is an easy out for the Feds to increase the fines/penalties on business and continue to abdicate their border responsibilities.

[Kathianne]

Yup, I would not be opposed to a program that allows foreign workers to sell the property they have in their labor ;) by registering in their home country to come and work for a period of time. We, rightly, allow high-tech foreign workers to come and work but criminalize those from the south that seek the same opportunity.

I think it is an easy out for the Feds to increase the fines/penalties on business and continue to abdicate their border responsibilities.

Heavily fine twice, after one warning. After that, close them down. There has to be regulations regarding who and how many are coming from foreign countries, it's not 1790, we're not primarily an agricultural economy, and we don't need people now to populate areas that are being added to the country.

[SassyLady]

Yup, I would not be opposed to a program that allows foreign workers to sell the property they have in their labor ;) by registering in their home country to come and work for a period of time. We, rightly, allow high-tech foreign workers to come and work but criminalize those from the south that seek the same opportunity.

I think it is an easy out for the Feds to increase the fines/penalties on business and continue to abdicate their border responsibilities.

I didn't know the feds were getting the fines ... I thought this was a state mandated law.

[fj1200]

Heavily fine twice, after one warning. After that, close them down. There has to be regulations regarding who and how many are coming from foreign countries, it's not 1790, we're not primarily an agricultural economy, and we don't need people now to populate areas that are being added to the country.

Some are major food producers who do not have enough native population who will do the work, shutting them down would have major ramifications on food production. It's also seasonal work that wouldn't be able to raise the necessary labor even if they wanted to comply.

Carrot and stick, shut the border and then begin to deal with the ramifications and provide a means for firms to hire the labor they need. The consumer will be the end payer of a tougher immigration policy.

[fj1200]

I didn't know the feds were getting the fines ... I thought this was a state mandated law.

You're right, I was talking about Fed penalties compared to their border responsibilities though.

Good to see you posting more. :cool:

[SassyLady]

Some are major food producers who do not have enough native population who will do the work, shutting them down would have major ramifications on food production. It's also seasonal work that wouldn't be able to raise the necessary labor even if they wanted to comply.

Carrot and stick, shut the border and then begin to deal with the ramifications and provide a means for firms to hire the labor they need. The consumer will be the end payer of a tougher immigration policy.

If the feds really wanted to enforce immigration laws and yet provide enough labor for the ag field, they would make it easier for farmers to bring in seasonal labor. There is currently a program where a farmer can "sponsor" workers ... but the compliance issues are so vast and complicated most can't afford the overhead to participate.

[Kathianne]

Some are major food producers who do not have enough native population who will do the work, shutting them down would have major ramifications on food production. It's also seasonal work that wouldn't be able to raise the necessary labor even if they wanted to comply.

Carrot and stick, shut the border and then begin to deal with the ramifications and provide a means for firms to hire the labor they need. The consumer will be the end payer of a tougher immigration policy.

First maintain the borders, then address those problems.