Federal judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law

CNN.com

Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) — A federal judge has blocked one of the most controversial sections of a tough Arizona immigration law, granting a preliminary injunction Wednesday that prevents police from questioning people about their immigration status.

That provision of the law requires police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling, in response to a motion filed by the federal government, came with scant hours to go before the law goes into effect.

She also blocked provisions of the law making it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers or "for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work," and a provision "authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person" if there is reason to believe that person might be subject to deportation.

Seven lawsuits are seeking to block implementation of the law, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April. The law, which also targets those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them, is to go into effect Thursday.

CNN senior analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the ruling reflects the government’s argument that immigration enforcement should be dealt with at the federal level.

"Arizona may have good intentions, they may be trying to make up for where the us government has failed, but what the judge is saying is this is not the way to do it."

"I think this a case very much destined for the Supreme Court," as other states pass similar laws, Toobin said.

The Court of Appeals could take up the case in a matter of days, but the earliest the Supreme Court could look at it would be October because the high court is in summer recess.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said she was disappointed by the ruling and that Arizona will file an expedited appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," she said in a statement. "I am deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government."

She emphasized that Wednesday’s action was a temporary injunction, and that many other parts of the bill will go into effect as planned.

For instance, a ban on so-called sanctuary cities stands, as does making it a crime to pick up day laborers who are illegal immigrants. The parts of the law dealing with sanctions for the hiring of illegal immigrants also goes into effect Thursday.

Another supporter of the law, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, said that he and his crusade against illegal immigration will not be deterred.

" I am not really dissapointed about the judges decision," Arpaio said. "I know what my policies are and we are going to continue doing what we have been doing."

The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates immigration reduction, was disappointed but not surprised by the ruling, said executive director Mark Krikorian.

"If the opponents hadn’t turned it into this bogey man it would have been a useful, if modest, tool for the police," said Krikorian.

He argues the Arizona law wasn’t intended to usurp federal authority.

"Arizona does not have its own immigration policy, even with the law. They are buttressing federal law," Krikorian said.

President Barack Obama, a critic of the Arizona law, was not expected to comment on the ruling Wednesday.

The Justice Department issued a statement saying the court "ruled correctly."

"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," the statement said. "States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework."

The Department of Homeland Security also weighed in, saying that the injunction "affirms the federal government’s responsibilities in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws."

Meanwhile, the president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Thomas A. Saenz, said, "I think it’s a great victory for the Constitution. I think all the provisions she has blocked from implementation were the most egregious."

Reaction was not limited to the United States.

Applause erupted at a protest outside the U.S. embassy in Mexico City when a speaker announced the judge’s decision.

"I think it is a big victory, and it is the start of many more," said Sergio de Alba, president of the National Confederation of Workers and Farmers Organizations.

Minutes earlier, he had called on Mexicans to boycott products from the United States in protest.

Protesters attached signs to a gate in front of the embassy, with one slogan saying, "Boycott Against Arizona-Nazizona, home of hunting migrants and the Ku Klux Klan."

Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling, which is illegal.

Supporters point out that the law prohibits racial profiling and people cannot be stopped and asked for proof of legal residence based solely on their looks.

In addition to the U.S. Justice Department, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition of Latino Clergy, the Christian Leaders League of United Latin American Citizens and other individuals or groups have asked the judge to halt the law, commonly known as SB 1070. Bolton heard arguments in the case last week from the Justice Department and the ACLU.

The separate hearings were held in Phoenix, where Bolton sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Bolton’s courtroom was packed during the two July 22 hearings and protesters chanted outside throughout the afternoon.

Seven protesters were arrested on civil disobedience charges, according to the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

The legal arguments revolved around a range of issues, including racial profiling, effective enforcement and possible harm to Arizona’s citizens.

Attorneys from the Obama administration presented their case at the second hearing. The administration’s challenge contends Arizona’s law would usurp federal supremacy on immigration.

Brewer attended the hearing.

Arizona has argued that the federal government has not done a good job of securing the border.

"A law unenforced is no law at all," said state attorney John Bouma.

The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups argued earlier in the day that the controversial law amounts to racial profiling and will have a profound effect if it goes into effect.

"It treats people of color as suspects first, rather than citizens," attorney Karen Tumlin said after the hearing.

Bouma said the law would not treat people unfairly.

"These are hypothetical arguments. Local police are enforcing immigration laws all over the country," he told Bolton.

Those in favor of the law say SB 1070 is consistent with federal law. They say the law explicitly prohibits racial profiling and they are challenging the legal standing of many of the groups opposed.

They also contend opponents of the law have not been able to show there will be any harm from its implementation.

During the first hearing, Bolton said the law has a section allowing parts to still take effect even if other parts are struck down, according to CNN affiliate KNXV.

Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, and other lawyers and foes of SB 1070 repeated assertions that Arizona’s law should be rejected.

"We are here to defend the rights of those who cannot stand up for themselves," said Terri Leon, CEO of the Friendly House, which supports the legal challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Bolton heard a challenge to SB 1070 by an Arizona police officer the previous week.

Posted July 28th, 2010 by Jessica Spinks - Posted in Immigration | | 0 Comments

Arizona immigration law faces 1st court hearing today

A federal judge heard arguments on Thursday morning over whether Arizona’s new immigration law should take effect at the end of the month, marking the first major hearing in one of seven challenges to the strict law.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also is considering Gov. Jan Brewer’s request to dismiss the challenge filed by Phoenix police Officer David Salgado and the statewide nonprofit group Chicanos Por La Causa.

Bolton began by quickly dismissing Brewer as an individual defendant to the lawsuit, a motion unopposed by Salgado’s lawyer. She then began considering whether to dismiss the case.

Bolton said last week that she may not rule on the officer’s request to block the law before it takes effect July 29.

Hearings on the six other lawsuits, including one filed by the federal government, are set for next week.

The large ceremonial courtroom at the main federal courthouse in Phoenix was packed with more than 100 spectators as the hearing began. More than a dozen lawyers were in place along two L-shaped tables, evenly divided between each side. The jury box was filled with law clerks for judges who work in the building who came to observe.

Protesters and supporters of the law gathered outside the courthouse amid heavy security.

About two dozen supporters of the law, many dressed in red, white and blue, held up signs praising Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a major backer of the crackdown on illegal immigrants, and one said "American Pride."

About 50 feet away a group opposed to the law held up signs calling for repeal of the law.

The groups competed with each other using bullhorns.

"We demand an injunction. We demand a federal intervention," opponent Sandra Castro of Phoenix, 22, yelled into a bullhorn.

The law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

Supporters say the law was needed because the federal government hasn’t adequately confronted illegal immigration in Arizona, the busiest illegal gateway for immigrants into the United States. Opponents say the law would lead to racial profiling and distract from police officers’ traditional roles in combating crimes in their communities.

Since Bgned the measure into law April 23, it has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.

It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries and prompted the Obama administration to file a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the law.

Salgado’s attorneys argue the judge should block the law before it takes effect because it would require an officer to use race as a primary factor in enforcing the law and because the state law is trumped by federal immigration law.

Attorneys for Brewer asked that the officer’s lawsuit be thrown out because Salgado doesn’t allege a real threat of harm from enforcing the new law and instead bases his claim on speculation. They also said the state law prohibits racial profiling and that it isn’t trumped by federal immigration law because it doesn’t attempt to regulate the conditions under which people can enter and leave the country.

The other challenges to the law were filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, civil rights organizations, clergy groups, a researcher from Washington and a Tucson police officer.

Bolton plans to hold similar hearings July 22 in the lawsuits filed by the federal government and civil rights groups.

—— Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport and Michelle Price contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/07/15/20100715arizona-immigration-law-court-hearing15-ON.html#ixzz0tmAE4Udh

Posted July 15th, 2010 by Jessica Spinks - Posted in Immigration | | 0 Comments

Answers to tricky HR questions: Could asking DOL for advice put us in jeopardy?

The team of experts at HR Morning field real-life, everyday questions from HR managers and gives practical answers that can be applied by any HR pro in the same situation. Today’s question: Will asking the DOL for guidance on classifying workers trigger an investigation?

Question:

We’re working with some independent contractors, but we’re not entirely confident in how they’re classified. Is there a risk in calling the local Department of Labor (DOL) office for advice? Or will that trigger an automatic audit?

Answer:

The DOL will try to help and won’t start an enforcement action, according to employment lawyer Carol Bernick of the firm Davis Wright Tremaine.

The problem is, DOL personnel probably won’t give you a lot of time — so they probably won’t be helpful if your question falls into a gray area and would require real research. In other words, you may not get the best-quality advice by calling the DOL office.

Better bet: Contact your own lawyer before talking with anybody at the DOL.

Posted July 14th, 2010 by Jessica Spinks - Posted in Human Resources | | 0 Comments

Not Just Cheaper

Courtesy of entrepreneur.com

From processing payroll to integrating IT, outsourcing certain functions can mean better talent at lower costs.

Despite the stigma often associated with it, outsourcing is widely used for a variety of business functions–and it’s not always about finding the cheapest solution. The smartest small businesses farm out the functions that aren’t their core expertise, which adds value and saves money.

"What they keep in-house is the competitive differentiator," says Jagdish Dalal, managing director of thought leadership for the International Association of Outsourcing Professionals and president of JDalal Associates, an IT and business process outsourcing company in Hartford, Conn. "Amazon immediately thought about using UPS for distribution. Dell kept its marketing and design in-house and the rest was outsourced."

Here’s a look at functions that any small business should consider outsourcing at various points in their evolution.

C-level talent: As your business grows and you need more assistance with marketing and financial services, consider contracting with a for-hire chief marketing officer or an accounting team that can act as your off-site CFO. Doing so can help you get high-priced strategies without the high price.

Human resources: Healthcare packages and employee benefits are constantly changing. A benefits firm can help you find the best and most affordable packages for your situation. "You need to find someone flexible enough to adapt to you and have the products and services for you as you become a larger organization," says Mark Perlberg, president and CEO of Oasis Outsourcing, which provides outsourced HR services nationwide.

Legal: Small businesses should outsource this function. Law firms are adept at circumventing local, state and federal laws and will save you from excessive legal headaches.

IT: Much of the offshore outsourcing industry caters to IT services–but because of increasing costs and concerns with quality control, many companies are bringing the function back onshore. "Rates onshore have dropped because of offshore outsourcing," says Bill Hayduk, president of professional services firm RTTS in New York, which provides off-site software services. "Over the last 10 years, there have also been infrastructure problems offshore with power outages, quality of skill sets, finite resources and sometimes software quality."

Website strategy: The most effective way to create a well-designed, easy-to-navigate website–complete with the most appropriate search engine optimization tools and other marketing functions–is by leaving it to the experts. Check out local web design compa
nies that will work with you to custom develop your site.

Posted July 6th, 2010 by Jessica Spinks - Posted in Other | | 0 Comments