Supreme Court “appears” to favor Arizona law – setting stage for business owners to reject protectionist and restrictionist viewsWednesday, April 25th, 2012
The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case, Arizona v. United States, by late June.
I believe this case will now FORCE businesses and business owners to vote their pocket book this year. It would behoove business owners via the hotel
industry, the construction industry, the restaurant industry and the agricultural industry to reject restrictionist ideas that will affect their bottom line and dollar. We witnessed business owners who suffered in Arizona, Georgia and Alabama, as a result of protectionist ideas which created mass exodus eventually killing pro growth development projects.
Simply put – ultimately, it is a matter of economics and getting business owners to vote their pocket books during 2012. Either they will support pro growth and pro business ideas, or they will support protectionist and restrictionist ideas that will hurt their profits. And it is important for everyone to know Mitt Romney has received advise and the endorsement of Kris Kobach who is the King of protectionist and restrictionist policies because Kobach was legal architect behind SB1070 type of laws.
In an unsure time like this, it is important for us to learn from history.
Arizona business history points me to believe American voters and business owners will vote their pocket books in an effort to reject restrictionist and protectionist views that killed their business as witnessed in Arizona, Georgia and Alabama.
For instance, a 2011 historic vote occurred on Saint Patrick’s Day, a religious holiday that is remembered and symbolic for Saint Patrick driving the snakes from Ireland. Several Arizona lawmakers voted against harsh anti-immigrant laws (via SB 1308: Birthright citizenship, SB 1309: Birthright citizenship, SB 1405: Hospitals checking legal status, SB 1407: Schools checking legal status, and SB 1611: Immigration omnibus bills) that were supported by Pearce & Kobach Co. on St. Patrick’s Day. Arizona lawmakers chose to listen to their Arizona business community. The mass exodus and reversal of pro growth and pro business ideas brought Arizona lawmakers to their knees when they saw who the driving force of America’s economic engine really is. Small business is the economic engine, and without small businesses and entrepreneurialism, our economy would die. The snakes in Arizona represented the old Dixiecrat thinking people who embrace isolationism, restrictionism and protectionism. Isolationists work contrary to pro growth ideas.
In 2011, Arizona lawmakers chose not to continue to create criminal law, because they were more interested in solutions. They represent the politicians of our future, not of our past. In 2010, a harsh anti-immigration bill via SB 1070 was introduced, and the message some of these lawmakers have sent to Washington is this: the federal government must fix the broken immigration system.
In either case, the federal government will soon be forced to fix the broken immigration system because we need new tax payers that will sustain our American economy, and we must never support taxation without representation. Our government needs the additional tax revenues that new immigrants generate in order to sustain the burgeoning entitlement programs baby boomers require as they continue to retire. By developing a reasonable legal immigration plan, we create a system where immigrants share American tax burdens as they continue to contribute millions of dollars into our tax coffers. New immigrants sharing our tax burdens will help discourage our government from increasing taxes, because under the current system these entitlement programs will drain all federal revenues within 15 years.
From the Huffington Post:
The heated controversy over Arizona’s law has been driven largely by critics’ view that the law was borne of anti-Hispanic prejudice and invites racial profiling — despite language in the law prohibiting such practices. But Wednesday’s case concerned the more technical doctrine of federal preemption of state laws, which is based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause. Indeed, at the start of Verrilli’s argument, Roberts announced that “no part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling.”
Verrilli nevertheless slipped into this territory after Sotomayor urged him to list the reasons why the law should be preempted. He named first the “problem of harassment,” citing Arizona’s “2 million Latinos, of whom only 400,000 at most are there unlawfully.”
“Sounds like racial profiling to me,” Scalia retorted in an attempt to shut down that line of argument.
The Supreme Court seemed to take more kindly to Verrilli’s argument that imprisoning undocumented immigrants under S.B. 1070′s criminal sanctions for being present in Arizona or seeking work in the state would adversely affect the U.S. government’s control of foreign relations. And during Clement’s presentation, Roberts raised an eyebrow at Arizona’s “imposing some significantly greater sanctions” on undocumented employees than those provided in the federal law, which focuses on punishing employers.
…..A 4-4 vote did not seem at all likely on Wednesday, however, as majorities of the justices leaned toward blocking the criminal sanctions while allowing the “papers please” and warrantless arrest provisions to go into effect, provided detainees are not held longer than they would be in the absence of S.B. 1070.
While that outcome would be a partial victory for Arizona and the states that have followed its lead, such a ruling would also leave those laws vulnerable to potential and currently pending challenges by civil rights groups on behalf of individuals who allege violations of equal protection and due process protections, among other constitutional injuries.