Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Interesting observation re the AZ immigration bill; based on a quick read, I stand ready to be corrected
Topic Started: Apr 25 2010, 04:37 PM (432 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
It is soft on employers, they're in trouble if they 'knowingly' employ an illegal alien but they do not seem to be required to confirm immigration status themselves. So I suspect that, in practice, the Sergeant Schultz defense will be sufficient in most cases.


Again that's based on a quick read of the bill, I stand ready to be corrected if that's inaccurate.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ANy comments from the bill's supporters?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Raise you hands if you're surprised the AZ GOP would put the screws on immigrants while being relatively soft on corporations that hire them.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2010, 04:37 PM
It is soft on employers, they're in trouble if they 'knowingly' employ an illegal alien but they do not seem to be required to confirm immigration status themselves.
I don't know, what about the Legal Arizona Workers Act and E-Verify.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big John
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
it tells me that government is far more bipartisan than we give it credit for. Whether it's healthcare or immigration, the "legal" people (corporations) always seem to reap the biggest benefits.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
That one I've never read, MS, I do live rather far from AZ as you know. I have read (quickly) the current immigration bill, and that is the one to which I am referring.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2010, 05:16 PM
That one I've never read, MS, I do live rather far from AZ as you know. I have read (quickly) the current immigration bill, and that is the one to which I am referring.
Right, but if there's already a law requiring the verification of legal status, its absence in the current bill isn't so surprising. I don't work in HR so I don't know all the details, but I've certainly heard of the E-Verify push.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
There has long been federal laws requiring confirmation of legal-to-work status, even when I started my career in 1990 I had to bring proof. And as an employer (my nanny) I had to fill out an I-9 and copy her passport.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Galt
Fulla-Carp
From the AZ AG's website:

Quote:
 
The Legal Arizona Workers Act, as amended, prohibits businesses from knowingly or intentionally hiring an “unauthorized alien” after December 31, 2007. Under the statute, an “unauthorized alien” is defined as “an alien who does not have the legal right or authorization under federal law to work in the United States.” The law also requires employers in Arizona to use the “E-Verify” system (a free Web-based service offered by the federal Department of Homeland Security) to verify the employment authorization of all new employees hired after December 31, 2007.


I didn't read far enough to see what penalities, if any, apply.

http://www.azag.gov/LegalAZWorkersAct/

Edited by John Galt, Apr 25 2010, 05:27 PM.
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2010, 05:22 PM
There has long been federal laws requiring confirmation of legal-to-work status, even when I started my career in 1990 I had to bring proof. And as an employer (my nanny) I had to fill out an I-9 and copy her passport.
Yes, I think the act added business licensing penalties, including a two strikes and you're out. More details here.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/1128biz-sanctions101-CP.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Apr 25 2010, 05:16 PM
That one I've never read, MS, I do live rather far from AZ as you know. I have read (quickly) the current immigration bill, and that is the one to which I am referring.
It's not an immigration bill -- it's a law enforcement bill. The employer sanctions are already in place. They are also reaffirmed in Section 6 and 7 of SB 1070.
Edited by ivorythumper, Apr 25 2010, 09:36 PM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp


Major restauranteur charged with illegal hiring

This is the Feds on this one:

The owner of the landmark restaurant and bakery The French Gourmet and a longtime manager pleaded not guilty Wednesday to federal charges that they hired illegal workers and falsely claimed to the government that the employees had the proper work documents.

Michel Malécot, who is also the president of The French Gourmet Inc., which owns the restaurant, bakery and catering business on Turquoise Avenue in Pacific Beach, and Richard Kauffmann, a manager and pastry chef, were charged with conspiracy, harboring illegal immigrants and false attestation. The corporation was charged with 14 counts of conspiracy, false attestation and harboring illegal immigrants.

While Malécot and Kauffmann could face prison time if convicted, the indictment also says the government is seeking forfeiture of the well-known restaurant, as well as an unstated amount of money.

The property includes two parcels and has an assessed valuation of about $1.3 million, according to county records.


Not only are they filing charges against the owners of the business, they are also seizing the property that the business was run from.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
musicasacra
Apr 25 2010, 05:20 PM
Right, but if there's already a law requiring the verification of legal status, its absence in the current bill isn't so surprising.
Of course, but show me the law that requires almost any state official who does business with a corporation to demand the corporation prove immigration status on all its employees based on 'reasonable suspicion'?


(I agree that its absence isn't so surprising, although for different reasons than you were suggesting)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Apr 26 2010, 01:05 AM
musicasacra
Apr 25 2010, 05:20 PM
Right, but if there's already a law requiring the verification of legal status, its absence in the current bill isn't so surprising.
Of course, but show me the law that requires almost any state official who does business with a corporation to demand the corporation prove immigration status on all its employees based on 'reasonable suspicion'?


(I agree that its absence isn't so surprising, although for different reasons than you were suggesting)
That comes under the basic fiduciary duty of any government official to ensure that the laws of the State and the nation are being upheld.

None of this would have arisen had Obama and Holder and Napolitano not have tried to prevent the duly sworn Sheriff of Maricopa County from doing his duty under State law. The State Legislature is only upholding its own Statues, in due deference to existing Federal laws regarding civil rights. Blame Obama for this, if you can muster that.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp

Form I-9 from Homeland Security.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Apr 26 2010, 04:38 PM
That comes under the basic fiduciary duty of any government official to ensure that the laws of the State and the nation are being upheld.
Which apparently is insufficient when it comes to individuals, yet just fine when it comes to corporations that hire them.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Apr 27 2010, 01:28 AM
ivorythumper
Apr 26 2010, 04:38 PM
That comes under the basic fiduciary duty of any government official to ensure that the laws of the State and the nation are being upheld.
Which apparently is insufficient when it comes to individuals, yet just fine when it comes to corporations that hire them.
I have no idea what you mean. Corporations are also required to obey state laws, and law enforcement standards apply to them as well. You really do seem to be trying to narrow this conversation down to such a small field to defend some point or another, but at this point I have no idea why, or even what point you are trying to make.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply