AZMEX I3 SPECIAL 23 NOV 2016
Comment: As usual, no concern for the actual victims of ID theft.
Can't use I-9 form as evidence? Imposing a very difficult condition?
"almost exclusively immigrant workers." Meaning illegal immigrants.
Some very biased coverage.
thx
Judge upholds laws used to justify Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's work-site raids
Megan Cassidy , The Republic | azcentral.com
9:55 p.m. MST November 22, 2016
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/11/22/judge-upholds-laws-used-justify-maricopa-county-sheriff-joe-arpaios-work-site-raids/94317880/
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the laws used to back Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's workplace raids will remain on the books, capping off a two-year lawsuit that claimed Arizona's identity-theft statutes targeted immigrant workers.
In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell found that while the laws did largely affect undocumented immigrants, they also served as a legitimate law-enforcement tool in combating identity theft.
"The laws were passed in part for their effect on immigration by unauthorized aliens," he wrote, "but the legislature was also addressing a pressing criminal problem that adversely affected Arizona residents."
Arpaio's brand of illegal-im
migration enforcement sparked various legal challenges throughout the last several years, and Tuesday's ruling serves as one of the lawman's rare victories.
"I have taken a lot of criticism for going into the businesses, arresting workers that are here illegally," Arpaio said Tuesday evening. "I said from the beginning my main objective was to enforce the ID laws, so I'm very happy that the judge ruled in our favor."
Unlikely that workplace raids will return
It is unlikely the ruling will resurrect the workplace raids, however. Arpaio recently lost his bid for re-election, and his successor, Paul Penzone, has denounced many of his predecessor's more controversial policies.
Judge weighs whether to halt Arpaio's workplace raids
The decision also comes with a caveat. Campbell ruled that state attorneys cannot use I-9 employment forms to investigate or prosecute state identity-theft or forgery violations. Campbell said such use is pre-empted by federal law.
Annie Lai, a plaintiffs' attorney with the University of California at Irvine School of Law's Immigrant Rights Clinic, said this portion of the ruling "reaffirms the notion that state and local officials may not appropriate the federal employment-verification system to target undocumented workers."
Lai noted that the court said additional details will be briefed at a later date.
"In the meantime, we are considering all available options," she said.
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in court: Attorneys defend ID-theft statutes backing workplace raids
Tuesday's filing stems from a 2014 lawsuit leveled by civil-rights group Puente Arizona, which challenged two identity-theft laws Arizona legislators passed that made it a felony to use false information to gain employment. The laws applied regardless of whether the fake identity was attached to a real person.
Puente's attorneys contended the laws were less about law enforcement and more designed to purge illegal immigrants in the state. The plaintiffs also argued immigration enforcement was the sole responsibility of federal, rather than state, government.
Plaintiffs cited the bills' sponsors to bolster their arguments. During one of the bills' hearings, then-state Sen. Russell Pearce said Arizona needed to do more to address the problem of illegal immigration, and that "attrition starts through enforcement," according to court documents.
Sting operations in Valley
The lawsuit was primarily inspired by Arpaio's sting operations on local businesses.
Largely acting on tips, deputies would raid restaurants, car washes and other places of employment, arresting mostly low-level employees suspected of using false identities to gain employment. Between 2008 and 2014, the agency conducted more than 80 raids and arrested more than 800 people, almost exclusively immigrant workers.
Workers ask judge to halt Arpaio raids pending lawsuit
The suit also challenged the prosecution of the law, as well as the law's underlying constitutionality, a tactic that roped in the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and the state of Arizona as defendants.
Though Arpaio eliminated the work-site operations in December 2014, Campbell issued a preliminary injunction the following month effectively outlawing prosecution under the laws.
That injunction was reversed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May of this year. The panel acknowledged that while some applications of the laws may conflict with the federal government, the state and federal authorities didn't overlap when the laws were used to prosecute U.S. citizens.
SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO LEGAL TROUBLES
Judge: Arpaio in contempt of court
Key moments in contempt case
Profiling case costs taxpayers $13M on top of $41M
Arpaio has always done it his way
Arpaio through the years
The man judging Sheriff Joe
Arpaio: PI investigated judge's wife
Arpaio's legal fate hinges on intent
Arpaio charged in criminal contempt
Our view: Sheriff Joe Arpaio must go
See full azcentral coverage
The parties last met in October, when plaintiffs' and defense attorneys both argued that Campbell should rule in their favor without the case going to trial.
Attorneys representing Arpaio and prosecutors argued that the laws offered legal protection for the victims of identity theft. According to court documents, nearly 50 percent of the forgery and identity-theft prosecutions under the Maricopa County Attorney's Office "had at least one identifiable victim."
Mia Garcia, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Attorney General's Office, said the ruling means state attorneys can resume prosecuting individuals accused of job-related identity theft.
"The court refused to accept that they could hide behind the equal-protection clause, which protects against race and discrimination," she said.
Tuesday's ruling has no bearing on another racial-profiling case that has resulted in Arpaio being charged with criminal contempt of court. In that case, another federal judge ruled that Arpaio's deputies had racially profiled Latinos during traffic operations. The judge later found that Arpaio refused to abide by the court's orders that banned the practice.
In a statement on Tuesday, Puente Director Carlos Garcia said that Arpaio lost his re-election bid because of his "unjust immigration policies."
"We will continue to fight — using all tools at our disposal — to make sure that the rights of our community are protected," he said. "The workplace raids began in 2007 and our years-long battle against local politicians' efforts to tarnish our community has only made us stronger. We will not rest until Arpaio's legacy has been thoroughly rejected."
Campbell has asked for both sides' input on the case's remedies to be filed in the coming weeks.
end
No comments:
Post a Comment