Appeals Court Rules Arizona Day Laborer Ban Unconstitutional (9th Circus Kangaroo Court)

Stand With Arizona ^ | 03-04-2013 | John Hill

[montag813]

by John Hill
Stand With Arizona
Website | Facebook | Twitter

The 9th Circus Kangaroo Court of Appeals in San Fransicko has once again ruled in favor of illegal aliens and against American workers.

This time the Court upheld an injunction blocking an Arizona law - part of S.B. 1070 - which bars drivers soliciting illegal alien day laborers. The Court ruled the ban "violates the constitution's free speech guarantee".

The injunction was first imposed in February 2012 when U.S. District Court Susan Bolton in Phoenix ruled that statutes prohibiting people from stopping their cars to hire and pick up day laborers soliciting work are unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit panel agreed that the statute infringed on the constitutionally guaranteed right to commercial speech.

The Court incredibly then said: "The rules limit the ability of laborers and employers to negotiate and consummate a legal transaction—to hire or be hired for day labor."

A LEGAL transaction? Do these judges even have law degrees? It is against Federal law to recruit and employee an illegal alien.

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he:

• assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment,
• encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
• knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

More specifically, as written in the Federal code :

It is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an alien for a fee, knowing the alien is unauthorized to work in the United States. It is equally unlawful to continue to employ an alien knowing that the alien is unauthorized to work....Harboring or aiding illegal aliens is not protected by the First Amendment. It is a felony to establish a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of federal immigration law. Violators may be fined or imprisoned for up to 5 years. (INA 274 - 275, 46 USC 8704)

Freedom of speech protections for foreign aliens engaged in an unlawful act of commerce? Felonious Federal violations as "lawful transactions"?

The inmates are truly running the asylum.

It is unclear whether Gov. Jan Brewer will appeal this 3-"judge" ruling to the full 9th Circus clowns, or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The choice is hers. We urge the Governor to continue to fight this madness any way she can.

---

If YOU stand with Gov. Brewer and against illegal immigration and want to see the border secured, the rule of law upheld and amnesty for illegals stopped, then put your name where your heart is, and join the 160,000+ who have signed the  petition...

 

 

[Conscience of a Conservative]

“A LEGAL transaction? Do these judges even have law degrees? It is against Federal law to recruit and employee an illegal alien.”

I believe the Arizona law applies to any day laborers, regardless of legal status. So, yes, it impedes some legal transactions.

[rudabaga]

This part of the law is and should be deemed unconstitutional. Do you actually want the state telling you that it’s a crime to stop your car and hire someone to do a job for you, like move your refrigerator, etc?

That’s what the law said. It said nothing about illegal aliens and it’s an absolute disgrace and affront to economic liberty rights. You should cheer this.

[jameslalor]

“...an Arizona law - part of S.B. 1070 - which bars drivers soliciting illegal alien day laborers. The Court ruled the ban violates the constitution’s free speech guarantee’. “

Ahh! Step up! Step up! Come one and all and see the amazing liberal mental gymnastics! Marvel at the convoluted rationalizations belted out rapid-fire in order to justify any policy harmful to the American nation and its people!

Here ladies and gentlemen we have the same people who have been able to construe somehow that an unwritten right to privacy within the constitution grants a person the right to end the life of a child, the same people who can find that “freedom of speech” means “soliciting criminals for untaxed and unregulated business transactions”, yet amazingly enough these same people can’t get it through their heads that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Remarkable, isn’t it?

[joshua c]

Two things, one we are in charge and two,when we forget that we are in charge, we become part of the problem. I include myself in that statement.

I buy products and services every day and never give e-verify a thought. I have seen one company post an e-verify notice on their door, Boston Market. All others, who knows.

Best guess is they do not use e-verify because the participation rate is in the low single digits.

How much pressure have they received from consumers? None.
I have checked the NumbersUSA database. I found one business that I patronize, my trash company.

I checked landscape businesses. There was not a single entry. No surprise there.

So how about we exercise the power of the purse and tell the businesses we patronize, we want them to use e-verify.

Ask your lawn service if they use e-verify, if they say no, then fire them. Are you going to be able to find a lawn service that does use e-verify? Probably not. But if they get enough requests, one of them will wise up and clean up.

That is what I mean by having the power. Control where your money goes to pressure businesses to sign up for e-verify.

If you don’t say anything then you are part of the problem. If businesses feel economic pressure to sign up, they will. If it becomes tougher to find work, then more illegal aliens will self-deport.

It’s not a perfect solution but it is heading in the right direction.

How about adding home improvement to that list.

[goldstategop]

You can’t penalize people who look for work.

Do we want to criminalize seeking a job in this country?

Law enforcement has more important things to do than rousting job-seekers.

[joshua c]

Whats your solution?

[Salvavida]

The court got this one right. It is not my responsibility to check people’s immigration status prior to entering into a contract; particularly for a cash transaction.

[sickoflibs]

This makes perfect sense.
In fact that gang of street-walking prostitutes strutting their stuff at the corner of your street are also exercising their first amendment rights too,
so scuze me I have to go over there and exercise mine too.

Why do you hate the constitution??

[moonshinner_09]

The 9th Circuit panel agreed that the statute infringed on the constitutionally guaranteed right to commercial speech. They sure do not think like this, when those guys get caught hooking up with an escort. And when escorts are arrested for offering their employment skills...there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to commercial speech.