It was started in Az. in 2007, Napolitano signed the bill as Governor
only because the Legislature passed it with enough votes to make it
veto proof.
Note the ID requirements are IDENTICAL to those the cops ask for in
the new law SB1070 and are in strict accordance with Federal Law.
Migrants lose jobs as law nears
Employers verifying status fire hundreds, attorneys say
Daniel González
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 18, 2007 12:00 AM
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of undocumented workers have been fired
as a result of Arizona businesses reviewing the work-eligibility forms
of their employees as the state's new employer-sanctions law draws
near.
The fired workers couldn't provide missing information uncovered
during the reviews or confessed to being in the country illegally, say
attorneys involved in the reviews.
The number of firings could grow significantly once the law goes into
effect Jan. 1 as employers scramble to make sure they are in
compliance. Under the law, repeat violators will lose their business
licenses.
The law, signed by Gov. Janet Napolitano in July, is aimed at clamping
down on illegal immigration in Arizona by pulling the plug on the job
magnet that has drawn undocumented immigrants to the state by the tens
of thousands over the past decade.
Businesses groups, however, asked a federal judge Wednesday to toss
out the law, arguing that it is unconstitutional and invites racial
profiling.
They favor a federal solution that allows more foreign workers to
enter legally to fill gaps in the labor market.
Reviews lead to firings
Federal law requires employers to ask all new employees for proof that
they are eligible to work in the U.S., such as a driver's license, a
green card or a Social Security card. Employers are required to record
the information on forms known as I-9s.
Internal reviews of those forms by businesses have led to the firing
of "many hundreds of workers, and perhaps thousands," said Julie Pace,
a Phoenix lawyer who is performing I-9 audits for companies. She also
represents business groups that filed suit against the state seeking
to have the sanctions law thrown out.
Employers are not allowed to directly ask whether a worker is legal,
Pace said. And many illegal workers could still slip through the
audits if they presented fake documents that appeared real when they
were hired and they filled out the I-9 correctly. But in many
instances, employers are finding that the I-9s were not filled out
properly. Upon questioning, employees are admitting that they are in
the country illegally, or they can't provide the missing information.
"A lot of employees are coming forward and saying, 'I know you didn't
know this, but I'm illegal. Can you help me?' " said Rebecca
Winterscheidt, a Phoenix immigration lawyer.
When that happens, employers have no choice but to fire the worker,
Winterscheidt said. Keeping them on would violate the law's provision
against "knowingly" employing illegal workers.
"That's the sad part of this. A lot of these are really, really
long-term and very good employees," Winterscheidt said.
She agreed that at least hundreds of workers already have lost their
jobs as a result of the audits.
"Many hundreds, I think, would be very conservative," she said.
Eligio Medina Roldan, 44, is one of those workers who lost his job.
The undocumented immigrant from Mexico City had been working at a
Phoenix warehouse for the past four years using fake documents.
Earlier this month, a supervisor from the company's corporate
headquarters in Texas questioned him about some of the information he
provided on the I-9 form. Medina Roldan said he was given eight days
to prove he was legally eligible to work in the U.S. or he would lose
his job.
"I don't have papers that show I can work legally, so I won't be able
to work," he said. "And I can't work, then I've lost the reason for
being here. My only option is to go back" to Mexico.
Tight labor market
The dismissals come at a time when the state's winter-tourism industry
is kicking into high gear and businesses already are struggling to
find workers because of very low unemployment rates.
"All of our hotels need workers. Our industry is experiencing a huge
labor shortage," said David Nance, vice president of membership for
the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association and the Valley Hotel and
Resort Association.
In October, Arizona's unemployment rate rose slightly to 3.5 percent
after falling to 3.3 percent in September, a 40-year low. The
unemployment rate in the Phoenix area rose to 3 percent from 2.8
percent in September. An unemployment rate below 5 percent is
considered full employment.
Some economists think the sanctions law could wreak havoc on the
state's economy by exacerbating labor shortages and scaring away
companies from locating here.
But a new study by the Center for Immigration Studies, a research
organization in Washington, D.C., that favors reductions in
immigration, suggests that there are plenty of Americans who could
step in to replace illegal workers.
The study estimates that there are 340,000 illegal workers in Arizona,
12 percent of the state's workforce. If all were to leave, they could
be replaced by some of the 710,000 Arizonans who are currently outside
the state's labor pool because they are not actively looking for work,
according to the study.
The 710,000 include 196,000 teenagers and 514,000 adults with no more
than a high-school education.
"The question is, is there enough labor to replace the illegals? Yes,"
said Steven Camarota, the center's research director.
Dawn McLaren, a research economist at Arizona State University,
doubted those findings.
She said Camarota is counting people who have made the decision not to
work and therefore are not considered part of the labor pool.
Some may be students living with parents, she said. Some may be
disabled. Others may be staying home with children.
"If they haven't joined the labor force thus far, they are paying for
their livelihood some other way," McLaren said.
Coaxing those people into the labor market would require significantly
raising the often low wages paid to immigrants doing manual labor or
other low-skilled jobs, she said. But that could lead to businesses
closing, higher prices for consumers, and higher inflation, she added.
"Someone has got to want the job an employer is offering, and the
employer has got to want that person to work for them," McLaren said.
Understanding the law
The sanctions law was passed amid enormous public pressure on local
officials to do something about illegal immigration. With 500,000
illegal immigrants, Arizona has the highest share of illegal
immigrants of any state in the nation. It also has the highest number
of illegal crossings of any border state.
Businesses caught knowingly or intentionally employing illegal workers
under the law face a 10-day business license suspension for a first
offense and having their licenses revoked permanently for a second
offense.
Other companies are getting prepared.
As of Tuesday, 4,460 out of about 150,000 Arizona employers had signed
up to use a federal database to electronically verify the employment
eligibility of new employees. The sanctions law requires employers to
use the database or risk punishment if caught knowingly employing
illegal workers.
Only 433 employers had signed up to use the program before the
sanctions law was signed.
Many businesses have been conducting internal audits.
Congress passed a federal employer-sanctions law in 1986 that required
the I-9 forms and created fines for employers who knowingly hired
illegal workers.
Until recently, however, the federal government has been lax about
enforcing the law and punishing violators.
As a result, "employers got the message that the I-9 was not something
to take too seriously," Camarota said.
Arizona's new sanctions law, however, is putting pressure on employers
to make sure their I-9s are in order to avoid having their license
revoked or suspended.
Yuvixa Koren, owner of Aguilas Radio Taxi, plans to do an audit in December.
"I want to make sure the (forms) are in compliance," Koren said.
Koren said she is afraid her company will be targeted because many of
her workers and drivers are Latino immigrants. But she said only 17 of
her workers are official employees.The company's 100 drivers are
considered independent contractors, so they are exempt from filling
out the I-9 form, Koren said.
Nancy-Jo Merritt, a Phoenix lawyer who specializes in immigration
compliance, said many other employers are conducting I-9 audits.
"We've been doing dozens of I-9 audits for the last several months,"
she said. "More than dozens."
On 5/24/10, euwe <machgielis@gmail.com> wrote:
> I outlined a surefire method to eliminate the jobs situation. However,
> no one even commented. They prefer, for some unknown reason, to
> concentrate on criminalizing the worker, rather than the hirer. Why do
> you think that is?
>
> On May 23, 9:11 pm, Harry Beck <hgb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> What would you categorize them as?? Illegal, simply visiting, without
>> papers (WOP), they are taking jobs away from Americans weather it
>> constitutes a felony or not. Heavy fines and tax audits should be levied
>> against any employer suspected and found to have hired these aliens.
>> Americans actually need passports today to cross borders that were
>> accessible with drivers licenses a few years ago. All they need is a wet
>> suit.
>>
>> Harry Beck
>> Montrose, New York
>>
>> Wherever you go, no matter what the weather, bring your own sunshine.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: euwe <machgie...@gmail.com>
>> To: PoliticalForum <politicalforum@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Sun, May 23, 2010 8:21 pm
>> Subject: Re: Illegal aliens are not criminals
>>
>> I posted the applicable civil conspiracy law, that shows that simply
>> going across with a friend or family member does not constitute a
>> felony, and also showed that smuggling does not apply to illegal
>> immigrants who are simply present. Felony charges may be levied
>> against "coyotes" but not against those who are simply discovered to
>> be present illegally. Your repetition still has not changed the fact
>> that illiegal immigrants are not guilty of felonies, or any other
>> criminal law unless they meet other conditions besides simply being in
>> the united states illegally.
>>
>> Try again.
>>
>> On May 23, 7:08 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Euwe,
>>
>> > I do suggest that you get a dictionary of legal definitions. Then look
>> > up
>> > the rules for human smuggling, then look up the conspiracy rules that
>> > apply
>> > and do so to the act committed in the particular instance,ie
>> > conspiratorial,
>> > before the fact illegal entry. It deals only with the conspiracy and the
>> > acts leading up to but NOT INCLUDING the actual criminal or civil
>> > violation.
>> > Those pre-act discussions and planning are in deed a felony.
>>
>> > Then read the entire summary and keep each phrase as self defining (I
>> > love
>> > legalese, it keeps the common man from being able to understand enough
>> > to
>> > represent himself.) and read it as though each sentence were its own
>> > paragraph with all content simply referring back to the main theme
>> > (illegal
>> > entry) while each sentence is in fact self defining. It has a whole new
>> > meaning IN CONTEXT of the law, not layman's terms and definitions of
>> > same..
>>
>> > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:41 PM, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I've heard you reiterating a point that doesn't apply. Your references
>> > > apply to smugglers.
>>
>> > > Establishing that someone who is simply "present" without
>> > > documentation helped someone to come in, and is therefore guilty of a
>> > > felony is not a forgone conclusion - it requires at least one witness,
>> > > evidence, or confession, since criminal violations assume innocence.
>> > > Neither witness, evidence or testimony that the immigrant was guilty
>> > > of helping somoene across would be available during a simple
>> > > discovery, nor would one think, at any time from then until they are
>> > > deported.
>>
>> > > You might insist on repeating your "analysis" again, but it' would not
>> > > make "being an illegal alien" a felony. Even after another 10 or so
>> > > repetitions, it will still be a civil violation to be illigally
>> > > present in the United States.
>>
>> > > Try again.
>>
>> > > On May 23, 3:45 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > As I keep saying.... it is on the books as a felony.... I would
>> > > > imagine
>> > > that
>> > > > the research done by these people is a whole lot more thorough than
>> > > yours.
>>
>> > > > The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in an Apr. 6, 2006 report
>> > > entitled
>> > > > "Immigration Enforcement Within the United States," offered the
>> > > following:
>>
>> > > > "The INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] includes both criminal
>> > > > and
>> > > civil
>> > > > components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., alien
>> > > > smuggling,
>> > > > which is prosecuted in the federal courts) and for civil violations
>> > > (e.g.,
>> > > > lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate
>> > > > administrative system in the Department of Justice). Being illegally
>> > > present
>> > > > in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the
>> > > > INA,
>> > > and
>> > > > subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are
>> > > > civil
>> > > > proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant alien
>> > > > may
>> > > become
>> > > > deportable if his visitor's visa expires or if his student status
>> > > changes.
>> > > > Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies
>> > > > and
>> > > > misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These
>> > > > types
>> > > of
>> > > > violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain
>> > > > undocumented
>> > > > aliens, the illegal entry of aliens, and the reentry of aliens
>> > > > previously
>> > > > excluded or deported."
>> > > > *
>> > > > *
>>
>> > > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > CIVIL CONSPIRACY
>> > > > > 'The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from
>> > > > > an
>> > > > > act or acts done in furtherance of the common design. . . . In
>> > > > > such an
>> > > > > action the major significance of the conspiracy lies in the fact
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > it renders each participant in the wrongful act responsible as a
>> > > > > joint
>> > > > > tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrong, irrespective of
>> > > > > whether or not he was a direct actor and regardless of the degree
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > his activity.'' (Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d
>> > > > > 44,
>> > > > > citing Mox Incorporated v. Woods (1927) 202 Cal. 675, 677-78.)'
>> > > > > (Id.
>> > > > > at 511.)
>>
>> > > > > 'Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that
>> > > > > imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common
>> > > > > plan or
>> > > > > design in its perpetration. By participation in a civil
>> > > > > conspiracy, a
>> > > > > coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of
>> > > > > other
>> > > > > coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. In this way, a
>> > > > > coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate
>> > > > > tortfeasors. Standing alone, a conspiracy does no harm and
>> > > > > engenders
>> > > > > no tort liability. It must be activated by the commission of an
>> > > > > actual
>> > > > > tort. ''A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se
>> > > > > give
>> > > > > rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed
>> > > > > resulting in damage.'' 'A bare agreement among two or more persons
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and until acts
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > actually performed pursuant to the agreement. Therefore, it is the
>> > > > > acts done and not the conspiracy to do them which should be
>> > > > > regarded
>> > > > > as the essence of the civil action.' [para.s] By its nature, tort
>> > > > > liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the
>> > > > > coconspirator
>> > > > > is legally capable of committing the tort, i.e., that he or she
>> > > > > owes a
>> > > > > duty to plaintiff recognized by law and is potentially subject to
>> > > > > liability for breach of that duty.' (Allied Equipment Corp. v.
>> > > > > Litton
>> > > > > Saudi Arabia Ltd., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 510-11.)
>>
>> > > > > On May 23, 3:27 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > Presence in the United states without permission is a civil
>> > > > > > infraction. For it to be a criminal offience, the offender has
>> > > > > > to
>> > > have
>> > > > > > been deported.
>>
>> > > > > > That is assuming he/she acted alone.
>>
>> > > > > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > One of the most fundamental distinctions between civil and
>> > > > > > > criminal
>> > > > > > > law is in the notion of punishment.
>>
>> > > > > > > criminal law
>> > > > > > > In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1)
>> > > > > > > incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the
>> > > > > > > government,
>> > > > > > > or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the
>> > > > > > > death
>> > > > > > > penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies
>> > > > > > > have a
>> > > > > > > maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration,
>> > > > > > > misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one
>> > > > > > > year
>> > > > > > > incarceration.
>>
>> > > > > > > civil law
>> > > > > > > In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never
>> > > > > > > incarcerated
>> > > and
>> > > > > > > never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil
>> > > > > > > litigation
>> > > > > > > only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the
>> > > > > > > defendant's
>> > > > > > > behavior.
>>
>> > > > > > > So-called punitive damages are never awarded in a civil case
>> > > > > > > under
>> > > > > > > contract law. In a civil case under tort law, there is a
>> > > possibility
>> > > > > > > of punitive damages, if the defendant's conduct is egregious
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > had
>> > > > > > > either (1) a malicious intent (i.e., desire to cause harm),
>> > > > > > > (2)
>> > > gross
>> > > > > > > negligence (i.e., conscious indifference), or (3) a willful
>> > > disregard
>> > > > > > > for the rights of others. The use of punitive damages makes a
>> > > public
>> > > > > > > example of the defendant and supposedly deters future wrongful
>> > > conduct
>> > > > > > > by others. Punitive damages are particularly important in
>> > > > > > > torts
>> > > > > > > involving dignitary harms (e.g., invasion of privacy) and
>> > > > > > > civil
>> > > > > > > rights, where the actual monetary injury to plaintiff(s) may
>> > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > small.
>>
>> > > > > > > One can purchase insurance that will pay damages and
>> > > > > > > attorney's
>> > > fees
>> > > > > > > for tort claims. Such insurance coverage is a standard part of
>> > > > > > > homeowner's insurance policies, automobile insurance, and
>> > > > > > > insurance
>> > > > > > > for businesses. In contrast, it is not possible for a
>> > > > > > > defendant to
>> > > > > > > purchase insurance to pay for his/her criminal acts.
>>
>> > > > > > > While a court can order a defendant to pay damages, the
>> > > > > > > plaintiff
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
