Skip to main content

Arizona to Stop Prosecuting Job Seeking Illegal Immigrants


I saw a little bit about this yesterday when I was in court and could not write a proper post about it until I was back in the office.  Something like this deserves some serious attention.


Yesterday, U.S. District Judge David Campbell of Arizona, ordered an immediate halt to Arizona's enforcement of identify theft laws that penalize illegal immigrants in the country from seeking employment.  In his order, Judge Campbell pointed out that federal laws state that simply seeking employment is not a crime, no matter the person's immigration status. 

Note, of course that federal laws prohibit using falsified documents (in the employment setting), but a distinction is drawn between identify theft and application to work.  Arizona, however, had changed the legal definition of identify theft and included in the definition any attempts at employment by immigrants in the country illegally. 

The issues over this law arose after Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was using Arizona's amended law to justify workplace raids.  These raids rounded up nearly 800 men and women that were charged with felonies for seeking employment while in the country illegally. 

At this point, enforcement of Arizona's amended law that allows prosecution of job seeking illegal immigrants is on hold, pending further rulings from Judge Campbell or an appeal to a higher court.  This is a troubling ruling as it begs the question...how much are the courts willing to bend the laws?  There is something to be said for people who want to work and actively seek gainful employment.  There is another thing to be said, however, when valid laws are not enforced and instead are cast aside for certain groups of people.  I doubt this is the last we hear of this issue.


Additional information can be found here:  http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arizona-immigrants-sheriff-20150105-story.html

A copy of Judge Campbell's order can be found here:  http://documents.latimes.com/arizona-identity-theft-decision/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more