Patterico's Pontifications

2/2/2010

Appeals Court Enjoins Oklahoma Immigration Provisions

Filed under: Immigration — DRJ @ 4:56 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

In 2007, Oklahoma lawmakers passed House Bill 1804 regarding a range of immigration measures. The Tulsa World reports that, in a decision issued today, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined enforcement of some of those provisions:

“The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 3-0 upheld a preliminary injunction against provisions that:

  • Prohibit firing of workers legally in the country while retaining workers illegally in the country.
  • Require businesses that contract with individual private contractors to obtain documentation that the individuals are authorized to work or, without documentation, withhold taxes at the top rate.
  • The court’s action on those two provisions means they will not be enforced, pending further legal action.

    The court overturned a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a third part of the law. That portion requires employers to use a federal computer system to verify eligibility of job seekers. The provision only affects businesses that contract with government entities for physical performance of services, such as building roads or bridges.

    The court’s action on that part of law means it will go into effect, though it is unclear when.”

    The verification provision requires that certain employers use the E-Verify program. The article states that “[u]nlike the Oklahoma law, Congress has not made use of the computerized verification system, known as “E-Verify,” mandatory for employers.”

    According to the report, the Court held that the enjoined portions of the Oklahoma law infringed on the federal government’s authority over immigration matters. [Note: I have not read the decision. It should be available here but it was not available when this was posted.]

    — DRJ

    21 Responses to “Appeals Court Enjoins Oklahoma Immigration Provisions”

    1. I can see why the second bullet-point got nailed (it requires a business to purchase a service), but as for the first one, I can not for the life of me see what the hell the problem could be with it…

      Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

    2. Personally, I compare the enforcement of immigration law with easements:
      If you fail to excercise your easement rights, you will lose them; the same should be true with immigration law enforcement.
      The Feds have long ago walked off the field, it’s time for others to pick up the ball.

      AD - RtR/OS! (eadee4)

    3. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce took the lead in the court battles.

      The US Chamber of Commerce is the enemy of America.

      Subotai (bb41c8)

    4. The idea that a state, with its own police powers of legislation, requiring employers in that state obtain more documentation of eligibility to work being an invasion of a federal topic is just a surreal holding.

      SPQR (26be8b)

    5. the Court held that the enjoined portions of the Oklahoma law infringed on the federal government’s authority over immigration matters.

      The Federal government, of which the 10th District Court is a part, has a policy of underming our immigration laws at every possible opportunity.

      Subotai (bb41c8)

    6. the Court held that the enjoined portions of the Oklahoma law infringed on the federal government’s authority over immigration matters.

      I’ll believe this nonsense when I see the courts cracking down on “sanctuary cities” for infringing on the federal governments authority over immigration matters.

      Which is to say, never.

      Subotai (bb41c8)

    7. “I can see why the second bullet-point got nailed (it requires a business to purchase a service)”

      Why would a court overturn a state regulation based on that?

      imdw (490521)

    8. Why would a court overturn a state regulation based on that?

      Yes, I find myself agreeing with imdw there. States require businesses to do all sorts of things and purchase all sorts of services. Insurance, for example.

      Subotai (bb41c8)

    9. Why would a court overturn a state regulation based on that?

      I’ll amend my comment, because I misread the second bullet point.

      However, my new reading still leaves me still agreeing with it being struck down, since I don’t think it’s legal to just deduct the highest possible with-holdings without ANYTHING to back it up. I could see lesser rates being ok, but the fact that it is the “top rate” probably is what likely killed it.

      Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

    10. Would Medina’s campaign promise to turn out the Texas National Guard in force to patrol the borders fall under this indictment “infringement” ruling?

      EricPWJohnson (43d480)

    11. As noted above, I’m not sure what the basis of the Court’s ruling was. My summary was based on news accounts and they’ve been known to get it wrong. I’ll look again for the decision and a link.

      DRJ (84a0c3)

    12. Doesn’t AZ require businesses to use e-Verify also?
      Plus, they have some very draconian regulations regarding the issuance of business licenses to businesses who have been found to be employing illegal aliens –
      have those regulations been adjudicated in the Federal Courts?

      AD - RtR/OS! (eadee4)

    13. Doesn’t AZ require businesses to use e-Verify also?

      As I said, it might be the specified level of with holdings that downed the second bullet point.

      The court upheld the use of E-Verify…

      Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

    14. Would Medina’s campaign promise to turn out the Texas National Guard in force to patrol the borders fall under this indictment “infringement” ruling?

      I doubt it, since a Governor is the Commander-in-Chief of their state’s National Guard…

      Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

    15. I’m not sure what the basis of the Court’s ruling was.

      “Politics” is usually the correct answer whenever you find yourself asking why the government did something.

      Subotai (bb41c8)

    16. I found the opinion here and fixed the link in the post. A quick review indicates the Court held that federal law preempted Oklahoma law on two of the three provisions. This was an appeal of an injunction proceeding so it’s not a final decision on the merits, but the standard is so high that it’s effectively a decision on the merits.

      DRJ (84a0c3)

    17. So, where does the federal government require one to employ illegals and/or place their employment rights on an equal basis with legal residents?

      I just don’t see what is doing the preempting. Now, if the feds actually passed an amnesty bill that would be one thing, but if their POWER to pass an amnesty bill pre-empts state law, then all bets are off. One would expect next to find Romneycare preempted…

      Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

    18. Oh, it does help to actually read the decision, I guess. Apparently the federal law expressly prohibits states from passing their own controls on illegals. Lobbyists from the garment industry or somesuch.

      Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

    19. Eric:

      Would Medina’s campaign promise to turn out the Texas National Guard in force to patrol the borders fall under this indictment “infringement” ruling?

      This isn’t an easy question to answer but I have some thoughts:

      1. I think a Texas Governor could call out Texas military forces as set forth in Section 431.111 of the Texas Government Code, which I assume includes the Texas National Guard, the Texas State Guard, and the state militia.

      2. I think the Texas and other State National Guard units serve their respective states only when they are not mobilized or otherwise under federal control. My guess is any State Governor who tried to make a systematic use of National Guard troops in contravention of federal immigration policies would quickly find those troops “mobilized or otherwise under federal control.”

      If that’s correct, that may be why Texas Governor Rick Perry used the Texas Rangers and not the Texas National Guard troops to assist in border enforcement. I’m not sure how many Texas State Guard troops there are (the regiments, divisions and brigades are listed here), and I doubt a Governor would call up the state militia, i.e., call up some or all able-bodied citizens between the ages of 18 and 60 as authorized by Section 431.081.

      DRJ (84a0c3)

    20. “The provisions of this section
      preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than
      through licensing and similar laws
      ) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for
      a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.”

      Isn’t that what OK is doing? If not, it looks like it’s what they should doing. License companies to do business in the state only if they use E-verify, etc.

      Of course, this has diddly to do with the law and everything to do with power, so it’s an academic exercise.

      Subotai (bb41c8)

    21. It is decisions like this that should remind our representatives that we are the United STATES of America.

      There is a reason the Founding Fathers had states appoint senators instead of being elected like the House. Does anyone represent their state anymore unless it involves a kickback like the Louisiana Purchase or the Cornhusker Kickback?

      MU789 (514c52)


    Powered by WordPress.

    Page loaded in: 0.5847 secs.