10th District Court of Appeals: Oklahoma's Immigration Law will have strong implications in Utah's SB81
Yesterday, attorneys for both sides of the issues (Oklahoma Immigration Law 1804) argued before the Court of Appeals in Denver. Now it's a wait and see what will the Court's decision be. Should the Court of Appeals rule against Oklahoma's law then it will have a profound effect on Utah's SB81 and even affect it's implementation. We (Latinos) are hoping for the best. After yesterday's unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court it would be great to see another Court ruling on our favor. In the meantime we wait and see.
Thanks,
Tony Y.
HB 1804 fate up to judges
by: ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
5/5/2009 3:29:03 AM
DENVER — The fate of the employment provisions in Oklahoma's House Bill 1804 is now in the hands of appellate judges who heard opposing arguments Monday.
Those sections of the state's 2007 immigration enforcement law were intended to crack down on the hiring in Oklahoma of immigrants illegally in the United States.
``How can you claim an injustice (from those sections) when the intent of Congress is to not hire illegals?" Judge Paul Kelly asked a lawyer for opponents of HB 1804's hiring provisions.
The states "can't choose the means" to regulate the hiring of immigrants because only Congress has that authority, responded the lawyer, Carter Phillips.
Oklahoma's state Human Rights Commission, attorney general and Tax Commission, which have roles in enforcement of the employment provisions, are appealing an order by a federal judge in Oklahoma City that bars officials from enforcing those sections.
One of the sections requires employers contracting with government entities for physical performance of services to use a federal computer system to verify eligibility of job seekers. Another section prohibits firing of workers legally in the country while retaining workers illegally in the country.
The third challenged provision requires businesses who contract with individual private contractors to obtain documentation that the individuals are authorized to work. Without documentation, the contracting businesses are to withhold taxes at the top rate.
The provisions "are at odds" with federal law, Phillips contended.
Assistant attorneys general Dan Weitman and Guy Hurst argued the opposing view. The state officials they represent contend, in a court filing, the Legislature had the authority to pass those sections to protect "the taxpayers and legal residents of Oklahoma from suffering the adverse effects of illegal aliens."
U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron in Oklahoma City issued the preliminary injunction in June. She concluded that opponents of the provisions would be likely to show during a pending trial of their lawsuit that the sections are pre-empted by federal law.
The law is the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which regulates employment of non-U.S. citizens.
The chambers of commerce of the United States, Oklahoma, Oklahoma City and Tulsa, plus restaurant and hotel associations in the state, sued to have the employment sections struck down. The business groups did not challenge other sections in effect, such as requiring proof of citizenship to receive particular government benefits.
The fight has attracted national attention because of the implications the case has for other states.
Monday's three-judge panel, as typical, did not indicate which way it was leaning or when it would decide the appeal. The judges instead peppered attorneys for both sides with questions and comments.
The judges seemed to devote the most attention to the so-called "e-verify" requirement.
"Your position is that the state can do what Congress has expressly chosen not to do," Judge Carlos Lucero said to Weitman. Unlike Oklahoma legislators, Congress has not made use of the computerized verification system mandatory for employers.
"Congress has strongly encouraged its use," Weitman responded, noting that the federal law does not explicitly bar states from requiring use of the system.
"I don't see a problem here," Judge Kelly told Phillips, referring to use of the system.
The lawyer responded that the electronic verification system is unreliable and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged as much.
by: ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
5/5/2009 3:29:03 AM
DENVER — The fate of the employment provisions in Oklahoma's House Bill 1804 is now in the hands of appellate judges who heard opposing arguments Monday.
Those sections of the state's 2007 immigration enforcement law were intended to crack down on the hiring in Oklahoma of immigrants illegally in the United States.
``How can you claim an injustice (from those sections) when the intent of Congress is to not hire illegals?" Judge Paul Kelly asked a lawyer for opponents of HB 1804's hiring provisions.
The states "can't choose the means" to regulate the hiring of immigrants because only Congress has that authority, responded the lawyer, Carter Phillips.
Oklahoma's state Human Rights Commission, attorney general and Tax Commission, which have roles in enforcement of the employment provisions, are appealing an order by a federal judge in Oklahoma City that bars officials from enforcing those sections.
One of the sections requires employers contracting with government entities for physical performance of services to use a federal computer system to verify eligibility of job seekers. Another section prohibits firing of workers legally in the country while retaining workers illegally in the country.
The third challenged provision requires businesses who contract with individual private contractors to obtain documentation that the individuals are authorized to work. Without documentation, the contracting businesses are to withhold taxes at the top rate.
The provisions "are at odds" with federal law, Phillips contended.
Assistant attorneys general Dan Weitman and Guy Hurst argued the opposing view. The state officials they represent contend, in a court filing, the Legislature had the authority to pass those sections to protect "the taxpayers and legal residents of Oklahoma from suffering the adverse effects of illegal aliens."
U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron in Oklahoma City issued the preliminary injunction in June. She concluded that opponents of the provisions would be likely to show during a pending trial of their lawsuit that the sections are pre-empted by federal law.
The law is the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which regulates employment of non-U.S. citizens.
The chambers of commerce of the United States, Oklahoma, Oklahoma City and Tulsa, plus restaurant and hotel associations in the state, sued to have the employment sections struck down. The business groups did not challenge other sections in effect, such as requiring proof of citizenship to receive particular government benefits.
The fight has attracted national attention because of the implications the case has for other states.
Monday's three-judge panel, as typical, did not indicate which way it was leaning or when it would decide the appeal. The judges instead peppered attorneys for both sides with questions and comments.
The judges seemed to devote the most attention to the so-called "e-verify" requirement.
"Your position is that the state can do what Congress has expressly chosen not to do," Judge Carlos Lucero said to Weitman. Unlike Oklahoma legislators, Congress has not made use of the computerized verification system mandatory for employers.
"Congress has strongly encouraged its use," Weitman responded, noting that the federal law does not explicitly bar states from requiring use of the system.
"I don't see a problem here," Judge Kelly told Phillips, referring to use of the system.
The lawyer responded that the electronic verification system is unreliable and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged as much.
This email was sent to you by:
Tony Yapias
Cellular: (801) 577-3200
__._,_.___
Red Democratica 10 years "On line" (1998-2008)!
Http://reddemocratica.blogspot.com
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1631/articulos/protesta.phtml
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1612/articulos/debate.phtml
Celebrando 10 anos "On Line"..2008
Keep the candle burning
I have a dream
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/interactiveFrame.htm
FORUM TPSIPOL: RED DEMOCRATICA .
Informacion : Http://tpsipol.home-page.org
Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion
Para enviar un message , enviar a: eleccion@yahoogroups.com
Para suscribirse al Forum , enviar un mensaje a : eleccion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Para salir del Forum, enviar un mensaje en blanco : eleccion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Http://reddemocratica.blogspot.com
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1631/articulos/protesta.phtml
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1612/articulos/debate.phtml
Celebrando 10 anos "On Line"..2008
Keep the candle burning
I have a dream
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/interactiveFrame.htm
FORUM TPSIPOL: RED DEMOCRATICA .
Informacion : Http://tpsipol.home-page.org
Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion
Para enviar un message , enviar a: eleccion@yahoogroups.com
Para suscribirse al Forum , enviar un mensaje a : eleccion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Para salir del Forum, enviar un mensaje en blanco : eleccion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment