Anti-immigrant hate group legislation making its way through the federal courts

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Sen. Russell Pearce is often credited by the Arizona media as the author of anti-immigrant legislation in Arizona. Sen. Pearce encourages this perception to elevate himself to "hero" status among the far-right.

But Sen. Pearce does not write the bills. He merely puts his name on the bill as the sponsor and drops it into the hopper. These anti-immigrant bills are actually model legislation drafted by the anti-immigrant hate group Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and its legal affiliate, Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI). Immigration Reform Law Institute. Sen. Pearce simply carries water for this hate group.

Arizona’s controversial anti-immigrant law SB 1070 was written by a lawyer at the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed as an anti-immigrant hate group since 2007. Hate Group Lawyer Drafted Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law| Southern Poverty Law Center:

Kris Kobach, the author of the Arizona law and a lawyer at FAIR’s Immigration Reform Law Institute, has been the prime mover behind numerous ordinances that seek to punish those who aid and abet “illegal aliens,” including laws adopted in Farmer’s Branch, Texas, and Hazelton, Pa.

ILRI previously worked with town officials in Hazelton, Pa. and Riverside, N.J.to support ordinances that aimed to penalize landlords who rented to illegal immigrants. A judge ruled the Hazelton ordinance unconstitutional, and Riverside officials rescinded the ordinance. Immigration Reform Law Institute:

Michael Hethmon, IRLI’s general counsel and director, said his group decided to take the case as part of its strategy of “attrition through enforcement,” or urging illegal immigrants to leave the country by making it more difficult for them to find employment and housing.

The Hazelton, Pa. ordinance was a precursor to Arizona's employer sanctions law (2007) and was often cited by legislators as a justification for the Arizona law. (Companion legislation to turn landlords and school officials into immigration enforcement officers failed in the legislature).

On Thursday, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia struck down the anti-immigrant ordinance adopted four years ago in Hazelton, Pa., that touched off a wave of similar measures in cities and states, including Arizona. Migrant law in Pennsylvania city stricken:

A city cannot punish employers who hire illegal immigrants or landlords who rent rooms to them, a U.S. appellate court in Philadelphia ruled Thursday, insisting that regulation of immigrants is "clearly within the exclusive domain of the federal government."

* * *

The ruling is the latest to send the message that Washington – not states or localities – sets the rules on immigration.

"Deciding which aliens may live in the United States has always been the prerogative of the federal government," said Chief Judge Theodore McKee of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. "If Hazelton can regulate, as it has here, then so could every other state or locality.

"We are … required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress."

The City of Hazelton was defended in court by another far-right group, the Washington Legal Foundation, funded by wingnut billionaires. See, Washington Legal Foundation – SourceWatch.

Arizona's employer sanctions law was more narrowly drafted, focusing on business licenses of employers. The U.S. District Court of Arizona and a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Arizona's employer sanctions law. Arizona's employer sanctions law is presently scheduled for oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court on December 8. Court to hear arguments on Dec. 8 over employer sanctions.

There is a possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court and interested parties will want to consolidate the appeal from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Hazelton with the Arizona appeal, changing the schedule for briefing and oral arguments.

When there is a conflict in appellate court decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court must resolve the conflict. It would make sense for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear these cases together and issue a definitive ruling on the question of federal preemption in the field of immigration law.

There are differences between the Hazelton ordinance and the Arizona statute, so if the conservative activist majority on the U.S. Supreme Court wants to carve out a new exception to long-standing constitutional precedents, something they have been wont to do in recent years, they will hear these cases separately.

The appeal from the U.S. District Court of Arizona to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding SB 1070 on the narrow issue of the temporary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court is scheduled for hearing the first week of November. Hearing on SB 1070 won't go forward until early November. It is possible that the Ninth Circuit will delay any decision until after the U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision on Arizona's employer sanctions law, waiting for guidance from the Court.

By the time this case wends its way back to the U.S. District Court of Arizona for a trial on the merits, the U.S. Supreme Court will have rendered its decision on Arizona's employer sanctions law and possibly even the Hazelton ordinance. Depending upon how broad or narrow the grounds are for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in these cases, the fate of SB 1070 may already be decided.