HOUSE 'OF REPRESENTATIVES TwENTIETH NORTHERN MARIANA$ COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATURE P.O. Box 500586, SAIPAN, MP 96950
Ivan A. Blanco Chairman Judiciary and Governmental Operations Committee
A-~td -~/,;.7/11 STAN1rtNG COMMITTEE REPORT NO . .:?D - 3'7 DATE: JUNE 13, 2017 RE: HOUSE BILL NO. 20-068
The Honorable Rafael S. Demapan Speaker of the House of Representatives Twentieth Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature Capitol Hill Saipan, MP 96950
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Your Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations, to which House Bill No. 20- 068 was referred, entitled:
"To enact provisions that will fund non-immigrant worker registration and work identification operations for the Department of Labor; and for other purposes."
begs leave to report as follows:
I. RECOMMENDATION:
After reasonable discussion and deliberation on the bill, the Committee recommends that the House pass House Bill No. 20-068 in the form of House Draft 1.
Committee on .Judiciary and Governmental Operations Ivan A. Blanco John Paul P. Sablan • Francisco C. Aguon • Edwin P. Aldan • Blas Jonathan .. Br' T. Att ao • Glenn L. Maratita • Edmund S. Vill agomez Standing Committee Report No. 20- ? 'j June 13, 2017 RE: H.B. No. 20-068 Page 2 of 4
II. ANALYSIS:
A. Purpose:
The purpose of House Bill No. 20-068 is to enact provisions that will fund non-immigrant worker registration and work identification operations for the Department of Labor.
B. Amendments:
In addition to non-substantive technical amendments, the Committee made the following amendments to strengthen the intent of House Bill No. 20-068.
• Page 3 o Line 20 to Line 21 • After "of' deleted "Labor" and inserted "Commerce".
• Page 4 o Line 4 • Inserted a new subsection to read as follows:
"§ 106. Penalty. Failure to comply with the requirements herein shall be subject to a fine of not less of $100.00 and not more than $250.00 per employee per position. Provided further that funds collected from the fines shall be deposited into the Non-Immigrant Worker Work Identification Fund."
C. Committee Findings:
Your Committee finds that the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public Law 110-229, was signed into law on May 8, 2008. Title VII of this law amended Pub. L. 94-241 , the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States. Title VII extended most provisions of the INA and other U.S. immigration laws to the CNMI for the first time. On June 3, 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor published a notice in the Federal Register extending the CW program to December 31 , 2019.
Your Committee finds that in order for non-immigrant workers to be able to legally work in the CNMI, they must be approved by the United States Department of Homeland Security - United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (US DHS-USCIS). Soon after such approval Standing Committee Report No. 20- ,3 '? June 13, 2017 RE: H.B. No. 20-068 Page 3 of 4 and/or renewal, the responsibility falls upon the CNMI' s Department of Labor (DOL) to regulate issues for non-immigrant workers/ Hl Visa.
Furthermore, your Committee recognizes the need for the CNMI Department of Labor to work more effectively and efficiently and track all business employers and their employees so that they could better regulate issues for non-immigrant workers/HI Visa. The Committee finds that other neighboring U.S. jurisdictions have a resourceful system in place for registering non immigrant workers, in order to reside and work within these other jurisdictions; they must provide authorized work documentation(s) to the Department of Labor. The Committee agrees that it would be pertinent to establish such a resourceful system so that regulations can be effectively regulated and data can be gathered, therefore, your Committee agrees with the intent of the legislation and recommends that the House pass House Bill No. 20-068 in the form of House Draft 1
D. Public Comments:
Comment(s) were solicited from vanous agencies. Comment(s) that were received before Committee action were from:
• Honorable Edward Manibusan, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General. • Velma M. Palacios, President, Saipan Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.
E. Legislative History:
House Bill No. 20-068 was introduced by Representative Blas Jonathan "BJ" T. Attao on April 03, 2017 to the full body of the House and was referred to the House Standing Committee on Judiciary and Governmental Operations for disposition.
F. Cost Benefit:
The enactment of House Bill No. 20-068 will not result in additional costs to the CNMI Government because the legislation further proposes to establish funding, Non-Immigrant Worker Work Identification Fund, to pay for all the costs necessary for enforcing § 102, non immigrant workers registration procedures, and all other related purposes of the Act.
III. CONCLUSION:
The Committee is in full accord with the provisions of House Bill No. 20-068 and recommends the passage of this legislation in the form of House Draft 1. Standing Committee Report No. 20- '!J? June 13, 2017 RE: H.B. No. 20-068 Page 4 of 4
Rep. Edwin P. Aldan, Member
R . Blas Jonathan "BJ" T. Attao, Member Rep. Glenn L. Maratita, Member
Rep.~ d~ z, Member
Reviewed by:
Attachment: Letter dated May 11, 2017 from the Saipan Chamber of Commerce. Letter dated June 1, 2017 from the Office of the Attorney General. ....
SAIP AN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
P.O. Box 500806 Saipan, MP 96950 • Tel: (670) 234-7150 • Fox: (670) 234-7151 www.soiponchomber.com [email protected]
May 11, 2017
2016 Board of Directors Representative Jonathan T. Attao House of Representatives PO Box 500586 President Saipan, MP 96950 Velma M. Palacios
Vice President CC: Judiciary and Governmental Operations Chair, Representative Ivan A. Blanco Ron Smith
Secretary Dear Representative Attao, Representative Blanco, Kevin McCale The Governmental Relations Committee for the Saipan Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Treasurer Michael Johnson respectfully submits our position on the following bill:
Directors Alex Sablan HB 20-68: To enact provisions that will fund non-immigrant worker registration Perry !nos, Jr and work identification operations for the Department of Labor; and for other Donna Krum purposes. Tyrell Pauling Alex K. Youn After considerable discussion and review, the SCC opposes this bill for the following Executive Director reasons: Jill M. Arenovski • The SCC believes that this bill duplicates federal responsibilities and will be a
.dministrator burden to the business community. Mercilynn K. Patee '.) The SCC opposes this bill.
Coordinators Christine Tadeo Thank you for considering our comments: we appreciate the opportunity to give our opinions on how this bill affects the business climate of our island.
Regards,
~Velma M. Palacios President. SCC Board of Directors ;J/VI/LVII u111ar1 - rvvu. v11a111Ut::1 ru::,ruv11 Lt:!llt::I 1u1 no LU-OV, no LU-00
M Gma il Mercedes Usenuku
- -Fwd: Chamber Position Letter for HB 20-60, HB 20-68
Ivan Blanco
Good Morning Representative Blanco,
The Chamber humbly submits position letters for the following legislations:
a. HB 20-57- Authorize department of Labor to enforce criminal penalties and provisions of the Immigrations and Nationality Act Section 274 relation to the bringing in and harboring certain aliens. - No comment b. HB 20-60- To amend 9 CMC §5815 (c) and (d) of the Motor Vehicle Rental Safety and to add new subsections; and for other purposes.
e) c. HB 20-68: To enact provisions that will fund non-immigrant worker registration and work identification operations for the Department of Labor; and for other purposes.
We thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our views on this proposed legislation and how it affects the business climate of our island. Should you have any questions pertaining to the attached document, please do not hesitate to contact me at the information below. Have a wonderful day!
My Best,
Administrator/Coordinator
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.saipanchamber.com
(P) 670 234-7150/ (F) 670 234-7151
https://mai I .google.com/mai l/u/0/?ui =2&i k=8f493fdf62&view= pt&m sg= 15c0a64f6c 1fc6e4&search=i nbox&si m I= 15c0a64f6c1fc6e4 1/2 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Office of the Attorney General ~fi& e{fJWt43P z1K1 Floor Hon. Juan A. Sablan Memorial Bldg. DATE: {:/cl/;; ~ Caller Box 10007, Capitol Hill iJ) t e£J-,. Saipan. MP 96950 fl- :,;,g C-o/:,,,· c,,t /t L,1 %'.,· 1...:t11 -al-1· ti 7 (p /cf/ 11 - Id,:/ v/1[ a EDWARD MANIBUSAN LILLIAN A. TENORIO Attorney General Deputy Attorney General
June 1, 20 17 OAGHB: 2017-31
Hon. Ivan Blanco Chairman Committee on Judiciary & Governmental Operations House of Representatives 201h Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature Saipan, MP 96950
Re: HB 20-68 (to fund non-immigrant worker registration and work identification operations for the Department of Labor)
Dear Chairman Blanco:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 20-68 (to fund non-immigrant worker registration and work identification operations for the Department of Labor).
I have reviewed the version of the bill that were attached to your May l, 2017 letter. I offer the following comments.
HB 20-68 (to fund non-immigrant worker registration and work identification operations for the Department of Labor)
The bill is subject to challenge based on the preemption doctrine as federal immigration law occupies the field of alien registration. See Arizona 1•. United States, _ US _ , 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2500 (2012).
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
cc: Deputy Attorney General Governor Lt. Governor All Members, House of Representatives
vii Division Criminal Division Attorney General's Investigative Division Domestic Violence Intervention Center felephone: (670) 237-7500 Telephone: (670) 237-7600 Telephone: (670) 237-7625 Telephone: (670) 664-4583 Facsimile: (670) 664-2349 Facsimile: (670) 234-7016 Facsimile: (670) 234-7016 Facsimile: (670) 664-4589 ··. ~ . Arizona v. United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S._ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state Arizona v. United States law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law, but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status. Supreme Court of the United States ------·---·--·--·------·--·----·------·------· --·------··---·-·-·---.-·--·----,.--- -- Argued April 25, 2012 Decided June 25, 2012 / Contents ! Full case name Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. United States i • 1 Background ; Docket nos. 11-182 (http://www. supremecourt. • 1.1 Ninth Circuit opinion and way to Supreme gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docke Court decision tfiles/11-182.htm) • 2 Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court f Citations 567 U.S._ (more) • 2.1 Majority Opinion Argument • 2.2 Dissents Oral argument (http://www.suprem • 3 Legacy ecourt. gov/ oral_arguments/ argume • 4 See also nt_transcripts/11-182. pdf) • 5 References Opinion Opinion announcement (http://ww • 6 External links announcement w.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11 pd I rn1-182bse1.pdf) L ______------· --·-·- ---· ·-----·-·-·-····--·----·-·· l Prior history Injunction against Arizona, 703 I F.Supp.2d 980 (D. Ariz., 2010); Background affirmed and remanded, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir., 2011); certiorari On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law granted _ U.S. _ SB I 070, which supporters dubbed the "Support Our Law Holding Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" _[l] The act made it a An Arizona law providing authority for local law state misdemeanor crime for an iIJegal immigrant to be in Arizona enforcement to enforce immigration law violated without carrying registration documents reqmred by federal law, the enumerated powers of Congress and is pre authorizes state and local law enforcement of federal immigration empted by federal statute. Arizona law enforcement laws, and penalized those found to be knowingly sheltenng,niring may inquire about a resident's legal status during and transporting illegal immigrants. t2) lawful encounters, but may not implement its own immigration rules. Ninth Circuit affirmed and The bill's passage immediately sparked constitutional concerns reversed in part. over potential civil rights violations and have accused it of Court membership 3 4 5 encouraging racial profilingJ ][ J[ ] Tens of thousands of people Chief Justice demonstrated against the law in over 70 U.S. cities on May 1, 2010 John G. Roberts (International Workers' Day).[6][7J[SJ A rally in Los Angeles, Associate Justices attended by Cardinal Mahony of the Roman Catholic Church, Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy attracted between 50,000 and 60,000 people, with protesters Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito wavin.:c Mexican flags and chanting "Sise puede".[6][7][9) The city had become the national epicenter of protests against the Arizona Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan 9 Case opinions law.[ ) Around 25,000 people were at a protest in Dallas and more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States 1/8 01 ILJL..\J \I l\1 IL.VIIO If. VI Ill~ UlOlC,;:, - VV lf'\1~10 .... than·5,000 were in Chicago and Milwaukee, while rallies in other Majority Kennedy, joined by Roberts, cities generally attracted around a thousand people or so.PJ[8) Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor There and in some other locations, demonstrators expressed Concur/dissent Scalia frustration with what they saw as the administration's lack of ! Concur/dissent Thomas action on immigration reform, with signs holding messages such i Concur/dissent Alita as "Hey Obama! Don't deport my mama."[81 Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of · The case was filed by the United States Justice Department in the the case. United States District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, Laws applied 2010,POJ challenging Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. Safe Neighborhoods Act as usurping the federal government's 2 authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The ------· - --- plaintiffs also referenced the notion of federal preemption and stated that, "The Constitution and the federal ·immigration laws do not pe1mit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country")11 J Additionally, the Justice Department in its July 6, 2010 motion, requested that the federal courts issue an injunction to enjoin enforcement of the law before it goes into effect.f12l Arizona responded to the motion.[131 The 1976 precedent of De Canas v. Bica was relied upon in Arizona's Motion.
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Judge Susan R. Bolton ruled, blocking key portions of SB l 070 including "requiring police to check the immigration status of those they arrest or whom they stop and suspect are in the country undocumented would overwhelm the federal government's ability to respond, and could mean legal immigrants are wrongly arrested."[14l Judge Bolton wrote:
Federal resources will be taxed and dive11ed from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination that will flow from Arizona[l4J
Governor Brewer promised to appeal the ruling, calling it "a temporary bump in the road." (JS]
Several states jointly filed a Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae. The brief supported Arizona. The States of Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia, along with the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, filed their proposed brief on July 14,2010. The brief stated that it "defends the States' authority to concurrently enforce federal immigration laws, especially in light of the selective and even lack of enforcement of those laws by the Obama administration. Under the current situation, the States have 6 lost control over their borders and are left to guess at the reality of the law." P ] The Latin American countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Peru filed an amicus brief in support of the United States.
Additionally, 81 members of the U.S. Congress filed a Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae_[l 7J[lSJ The brief supported Arizona.
On July 28, 2010, Judge Bolton issued an order denying in part and granting in part the United States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction heard the prior week.(191
Among the provisions that will go into effect are the following: A.R.S. § 11-105 l(A): prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws; A.R. S. § 11-1051 (C)-(F): requiring that state officials work with federal officials with regard to undocumented immigrants; and, A.R.S. § 11- 1051 (0)-(L): allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency, or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. See 7/28/2010 Order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_ v._United_ States 2/8 -; An"appeal of the US District Court's 7/28/2010 ruling was filed on July 29, 2010. A motion to expedite the normal appeal schedule was also filed. Arizona gave the following reasons for the motion to expedite)20]
Good cause exists to expedite this appeal under Ninth Circuit Rules 27-12 and 34-3 and 28 U.S.C. § 1657 because it is an appeal of a preliminary injunction enjoining several key provisions of SB 1070 that the Arizona Legislature determined were critical to address serious criminal, environmental, and economic problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of undocumented immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government. An expedited briefing schedule will not unreasonably burden the parties because it is consistent with the expedited briefing schedule Plaintiff Appellee received for the initial ruling on its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the issues on appeal are narrower than those the district court addressed and have largely been briefed by the parties, and the parties are well represented with sufficient counsel to brief the issues under the schedule Defendants Appellants have proposed.
Arizona's Governor requested the following appeal schedule: opening brief due August 12, 2010, response brief due August 26, 2010, reply brief due September 2, 2010, and oral argument during week of September 13, basically a 30- day schedule, almost twice the schedule allowed for the original motion for preliminary injunctionV1l
On July 30, 2010, the Appeals Court ordered the following appeal schedule:
• opening brief due August 26, 2010 • response brief due September 23, 2010 • reply brief due 14 days after response • oral argument (hearing) during first week of November 2010
Ninth Circuit opinion and way to Supreme Court decision
On November 1, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in the case. The three-judge panel was composed of Judges Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and John T. Noonan.l22l On April 11, 2011, the Ninth Circuit panel upheld the district court's ban on parts of the law taking effect, thus ruling in favor of the Obama administration and against Arizona. Judge Richard Paez gave the majority opinion, in which Judge John T. Noonan, Jr. joined; Judge Carlos Bea dissented in part.E23l[24J Paez agreed with the administration's view that the state had intruded upon federal Recording of oral arguments heard by prerogatives. Noonan wrote in his concurrence: "The Arizona statute before Ninth Circuit. us has become a symbol. For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt. "[241
On May 9, 2011, Governor Brewer announced that Arizona would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than request a hearing en bane before the Ninth Circuit;l25l that appeal was filed on August 10, 2011.[26) In response, the Justice Department requested that the Supreme Court stay out of the case, saying that the lower courts actions were appropriate. (271 Observers thought it likely that the Supreme Court would take up the matter, [26) but if it declined to step in, the case most likely would be returned to the trial judge in the District Court to review the case on its merits and determine whether the temporary injunction that blocked the law's most controversial provisions should become permanent. [281 The Supreme Court announced in December 2011 that it would review Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,[29)[30J and oral arguments took place on April 25, 2012.(31)(32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States 3/8 6/12/2017 Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
On December 12, 2011, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case. The court heard oral arguments for this case on April 25, 2012. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because while she was the United States Solicitor General, she defended the federal government's position in this case under the Obama administration. [33]
On June 25, 2012, the Court struck down three of the four provisions of S.B. 1070. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice 34 Sotomayor.[ ] Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each concurred in part and dissented in part in separate opinions joined by no other justice.
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 were preempted by federal law.[34l[35][36) The three provisions struck down: required legal immigrants to carry registration documents at all times; allowed state police to arrest any individual for suspicion of being an illegal immigrant; and made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to search for a job (or to hold one) in the state.l37l[38l[39l
All justices agreed to uphold the provision of the law allowing Arizona state police to investigate the immigration status of an individual stopped, detained, or anested if there is reasonable suspicion that individual is in the country illegally. However, Justice Kennedy specified in the majority opinion that state police may not detain the individual for a prolonged amount of time for not carrying immigration documents; and that cases of racial profiling are allowed to proceed through the courts, if such cases happen to arise later on.l33l
Majority Opinion
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion identified the question before the Court as "whether federal law preempts and renders invalid four separate provisions of the state law." The four provisions in question were:
1. Section 3 of S.B. 1070, which made it a state crime to be unlawfully present in the United States and failing to register with the federal government; 2. Section 5, which made it a misdemeanor state crime to seek work or to work without authorization to do so; 3. Section 2, which in some circumstances required Arizona state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of people arrested, stopped, or detained; and 4. Section 6, which authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the United States based on probable cause.
Kennedy's opinion embraced an expansive view of the United States Government's authority to regulate immigration and aliens, describing it as "broad" and "undoubted." That authority derived from the legislative power of Congress to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," enumerated in the Constitution)40J as well as the long-standing interpretation of federal sovereignty in areas pertaining to the control and conduct of relations with foreign nations.[41 ) In this context, federal discretion as to whether or how immigration laws are enforced is an important component of Congressional authority. At the same time, Justice Kennedy's opinion acknowledged the serious concerns experienced by Arizona citizens and officials in dealing with illegal immigration, noting that signs along highways south of Phoenix, Arizona discourage travel by the public due to dangerous smuggling activities.
The majority opinion analyzed the four provisions in question within the framework of preemption, derived from the Supremacy Clause, requiring that federal law will prevail when state and federal laws conflict. The Court held that "the Federal Government has occupied the field of alien registration," meaning that all state action, "even compll .'.Ilentary state regulation is impermissible. "[42l Therefore, the registration provisions of Section 3 were preempted by federal law. In contrast to Section 3, the criminal provisions of Section 5 had no direct counterpart under federal law, leading the Court to apply the "ordinary principles of preemption" rather than the doctrine of field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States 4/P. • ~ prnemption. Under those principles, Section 5 stood as an obstacle to the objectives of Congress of not imposing "criminal penalties on aliens who seek or engage in unauthorized employment." Therefore, Section 5 was also preempted by federal law.
Section 6 of S.B. 1070 was also found to be preempted by federal law on the basis that it created an "obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress." The Court noted that it is not generally a crime for a removable alien to be present in the United States, and that Section 6 would give state officers "even greater authority to arrest aliens on the basis of possible removability than Congress has given to trained federal immigration officers." Furthermore, the removal process is "entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government."
The majority upheld Section 2, but did so by reading it in a more restrictive manner. The provisions at issue required Arizona officers to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of any person stopped, detained, or arrested on a legitimate basis if "reasonable suspicion" existed that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present 43 in the United States_[ J Additionally, any arrestee's immigration status would have to have been determined before 43 they could be released.[ ] Status checks would have been made through Immigration and Customs Enforcement and their databases. Listing several examples, Justice Kennedy wrote that Section 2(B) "likely would survive preemption" if it is interpreted only to require state officers to conduct a status check "during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released." Underlining the cautious approach that the majority took to Section 2(B) were Justice Kennedy's final words on the section: "This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."
Dissents
Justice Scalia dissented and said that he would have upheld all four provisions as a valid exercise of concurrent state 44 sovereignty over immigration.( ] Justice Scalia argued that the statute was valid because, "As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty."[451 To support his position, Justice Scalia reviewed several cases from the early history of the Supreme Court's Immigration jurisprudence.l45J
Justice Thomas likewise would uphold the entire law as not preempted by federal law,(441 but for different reasons. Justice Thomas concluded that none of the challenged sections presented an actual conflict with federal law, so preemption doctrine did not apply.(461
Justice Alito agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas regarding Sections 5(C) and 6, but joined with the majority in 44 finding Section 3 preempted and that Section 2(B) was not preempted_[ J With respect to Section 5(C) Justice Alito argued that "[t]he Court's holding on §5(C) is inconsistent with De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), which held that employment regulation, even of aliens unlawfully present in the country, is an area of traditional state concem."[47] He also argued that Section 6 was not preempted because, "[l]ike §2(B), §6 adds virtually nothing to the authority that Arizona law enforcement officers already exercise. And whatever little authority they have gained is consistent with federal law... [47] Legacy
The Solicitor General of the United States Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. said in an 2016 interview while it was a high-profile case in 2012, but that the consequences of that were not fully appreciated. In his view the problem was not so much the "show me your papers" provision of the law at issue, "but that the states are trying to supplant the federal government's role in setting immigration policy, and we can't have fifty different immigration policies."f48l After the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States 5/8 \)/1 ,:/,:U l I "' 'Lu11c1 v. u111teo ,:mnes - vv rK1perna • Supreme Court announced its decision this decision helped to deter other states from establishing and enforcing its ' own immigration policies. Virrilli concluded the Court's decision was "a very consequential decision" which meant that an incipient anti-immigrant movement "got stopped dead in its tracks."[48]
See also
• Immigration to the United States
References
1. Archibold, Randal C. (April 24, 2010). "U.S.'s Toughest Immigration Law Is Signed in Arizona" (https://www.nytimes.co m/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?ref=us ). The New York Times. p. l. 2. Arizona SB 1070, §1. 3. Johnson, Brad (April 23, 2010). "How can state's immigration bill not be un-American" (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonar epublic/opinions/articles/2010/04/22/20100422johnson23 .html). The Arizona Republic. 4. Rev. Jackson, Jesse (April 27, 2010). "Common Ground, African-Americans & Latinos" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/re v-jesse-jackson/common-ground-african-ame_ b _554072.html). The Huffington Post. 5. Montoya, Butch (May 1, 2010). "Taking a stand against Arizona law" (http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_1499448 8?source=commented-). Denver Post. 6. "Arizona immigration law sparks huge rallies" (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/0 I /arizona-immigration-law-protest s.html). CBC News. May 1, 2010. 7. Tareen, Sophia (May 1, 2010). "Anger over Ariz. immigration law drives US rallies" (https://www.google.com/hostednews/ ap/article/ ALeqM5huRjne6QzrwLdB qAiTDOOUErnQQwD9FEDGFG2). Associated Press. 8. Preston, Julia (May 2, 2010). "Fueled by Anger Over Arizona Law, Immigration Advocates Rally for Change" (https://ww w.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02immig.html). The New York Times. p. A22. 9. Watanabe, Teresa; McDonnell, Patrick (May 1, 2010). "L.A.'s May Day immigration rally is nation's largest" (http://www.la times.com/news/Jocal/imrnigration/la-me-0502-immig-rally-20I00502,0,5011733 .story). Los Angeles Times. 10. 7.06.10 DOJ Lawsuit http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf 11. Markon, Jerry; Shear, Michael D. (July 6, 2010). "Justice Department sues Arizona over immigration law" (http://www.was hingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07 /06/ AR2010070601928.html?hpid=topnews). The Washington Post. 12. US Motion for Preliminary fnjunction http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DOJ-AZ-brief-7-6-1 O. pdf 13. Arizona's response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_ 072010_ USvAZDefendantsRes ponsePlaintiffMotionPI. pdf 14. Stephen Dinan (2010-07-28). "Judge blocks key parts of Ariz. immigration law" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 I O/jul/28/judge-blocks-key-parts-ariz-immigration-law/). Washington Times. 15. "Judge blocks Arizona's controversial immigration law" (http://www.bbc.co. uk/news/world-us-canada-10607927). BBC News. 28 July 2010. 16. States' July 14 Amici http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-46849_47203-240761--,00.html 17. Trent Franks press release http://franks.house.gov/press_releases/480 18. Congressmen Amici http:!/republicans.judiciary. house. gov/Media/PDFs/U%20S %20%20v%20%20Arizona%20Amicus %207%2020%20201 O. pdf 19. Bolton 7.28.10 Injunction Order http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/0728IO_ArizonaRu1ing.pdf 20. 7.29.10 Arizona's Motion to Expedite Appeal http:/ /azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_ 07291 O_ MotionForExpeditedBriefingSchedule. pdf 21. Defendant's Appeal http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_0729 IO _PreliminarylnjunctionAppeal. pdf 22. Egelko, Bob (November 2, 2010). "Court signals backing for Arizona immigration law" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/arti cle.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/ll/01/MNDP1G54KO.DTL). San Francisco Chronicle. 23. Lacey, Marc (April 11, 2011). "Appeals Court Rules Against Arizona Law" (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/us/l2ariz Ona.html). The New York Times. 24. Markon, Jerry (April 11, 2011 ). "Court upholds block on parts of Arizona immigration law" (http://www.washingtonpost.co m/politics/ appeals_court_ upholds justice_challenge_ on_ ariz _law/2011 /04/ 11 / AFbyUKLD _story.html). The Washington Post. 25. Rough, Ginger (May 9, 2011). "Gov. Jan Brewer wants Supreme Court to overturn SB 1070 ruling" (http://www.azcentral.c om/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/05/09/20110509sb 1070-appeal-arizona-next-step09-0N. html). The Arizona Republic. https ://en.wikipedi a.org/wi kifArizona_ v._ United_ States 6/8 26. Billeaud, Jacques (August 10, 2011). "Brewer Asks Court to Hear Immigration Law Appeal" (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wi reStory?id==14269527). ABC News. Associated Press. 27. "Gov't asks justices to stay out of immigration case" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2011-11-10/ arizona-immigration-law-supreme-court/51159948/1 ). USA Today. Associated Press. November IO, 2011. 28. Aliaskari, Mahsa (May 2, 2011). "The Ninth Circuit and Arizona's S.B. 1070" (http://www.natlawreview.com/article/ninth-c ircuit-and-arizona-s-sb-1070). The National Law Review. 29. "Supreme Court to Review Arizona's SB 1070" (https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/december-12-201 l/supreme-co urt-review-arizonas-sb-1070.html). NumersUSA. numbersusa.com. 12 December 2012. Retrieved 24 June 2012. 30. Savage, David G. (12 December 2012). "Supreme Court to review Arizona immigration law" (http://articles.latimes.com/201 l/dec/12/news/la-pn-arizona-immag-20111212). The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 24 June 2012. 31. Savage, David D. (26 April 2012). "Supreme Court may uphold part of Arizona immigration law" (http://articles.latimes.co m/2012/apr/26/nation/la-na-court-immigration-20120426/2). The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 24 June 2012. 32. Sachs, Mark (25 April 2012). "SB 1070: Supreme Court Appears To Favor Arizona On Controversial Immigration Law" (ht tp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/sb- l 070-supreme-court-arizona-immigration-law_ n_ 1451622.html). The Huffington Post. Retrieved 24 June 2012. 33. Liptak, Adam; Cushman Jr., Adam H. (June 25, 2012). "Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece" (ht tps ://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supreme-court-rejects-part-of-arizona-immigration-law.html?_r= 1&hp). The New York Times. 34. Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/llpdf/ll-l82b5el.pdf 35. Cohen, Andrew (25 June 2012). "Razing Arizona: Supreme Court Sides With Feds on Immigration" (https://www.theatlanti c. com/national/archi ve/2012/06/razing-arizona-s upreme-court-s ides-with-feds-on-immigration/25 893 2/). The Atlantic. Retrieved 26 June 2012. 36. Savage, David G. (25 June 2012). "Supreme Court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law" (http://www.latime s.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-strikes-down-key-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law-20120625,0,5912888.story). The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 27 June 2012. 37. Barnes, Robert (June 25, 2012). "Supreme Court Rejects Much of Arizona Immigration Law" (http://www.washingtonpost. com/politics/supreme-court-rules-on-arizona-immigration-law/2012/06/25/gJQAONrm 1V _ story.html?hpid=z 1). The Washington Post. 38. Tom Cohen and BiJl Mears (26 June 2012). "Supreme Court mostly rejects Arizona immigration law; gov says 'heart' remains" (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politics/scotus-arizona-law/index.html). CNN. Retrieved 26 June 2012. 39. "At a glance: Supreme Court decision on Arizona's inunigration law" (http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012/06/us/scotus.i mmigration/index.html). CNN. Retrieved 26 June 2012. 40. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 4 (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html). 41. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936). 42. Majority Opinion at 9-10 http://www. supremecourt. gov/opinions/11 pdf/ 11-182. pdf. 43. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §ll-105l(B). 44. Rau, Alia Beard (June 25, 2012). "Arizona Immigration Law: Supreme Court Upholds Key Portion of Senate Bill 1070: Three Other Parts of Controversial Immigration Law Ruled Unconstitutional" (http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articl es/2012/06/03/20 l 20603arizona-immigration-law-s upreme-court-opinion.html). The Republic. 45. "Supreme Court Opinion in Arizona v. United States, Opinion of Scalia, J, p. 1." (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/l lpdf/ll-182b5el.pdf) (PDF). 46. "Opinion of Thomas, J dissenting, p. I" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/l1pdf/11-182b5el.pdf) (PDF). 47. "Opinion of Alito, J, p. 2" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1lpdf/1l-l82b5el.pdf) (PDF). 48. Gutierrez, Alexandra (June 30, 2016). "As Obama term winds down, Solicitor General Don Verrilli makes his exit" (http://w ww. scotus blog.com/2016/06/as-obama-term-winds-down-s olicitor-general-don-verrill i-makes-his-exit/). SCOTUSblog. SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 6, 2016. External links
• Justice Department press release (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/201O/July/10-opa-776.html) • SB 1070 (https://web.archive.org/web/201005270908 l 6/http://www.azgovemor.gov/dms/upload/SB _ 1070 _ Sig ned.pdf) • HB 2162 (http://azgovemor.gov/dms/upload/HB_2162Signed.pdf)
Retrieved from "https://en. wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arizona_ v._United_ States&oldid=776871260"
https://en.wil • This page was last edited on 23 April 2017, at 20:28. • Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States P,/P. Twentieth Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APRIL 3, 2017 First Special Session, 2017 H. B. 20-68, HD 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT To enact provisions that will fund non-immigrant worker registration and work identification operations for the Department of Labor; and for other purposes. BE IT ENACTED BY THE TWENTIETH NORTHERN MARIANAS COMMONWEAL TH LEGISLATURE: 1 Section 1. Findings and Purpose. The Legislature finds that in order for 2 non-immigrant workers to be able to legally work in the CNMI, they must be 3 approved by the United States Department of Homeland Security - United States 4 Citizenship and Immigration Services (US DHS-USCIS). Soon after such 5 approval and/or renewal, the responsibility falls upon the CNMI's Department of 6 Labor (DOL) to regulate issues for non-immigrant workers/ Hl Visa. In order for 7 the Department of Labor to perform their tasks, funds and resources must be made 8 readily available to accomplish such tasks. The funds collected are to be used by 9 the Department of Labor to enforce rules and regulations pertaining to non- 10 immigrant workers. 11 The Legislature further finds that other neighboring U.S. jurisdictions have 12 an efficient system in place registering non-immigrant workers. In order to reside 13 and work within these other jurisdictions, they must provide authorized work HOUSE BILL 20-68, HD1 1 documentation(s) to the Department of Labor. The collection of these documents 2 will allow for the CNMI Department of Labor to work more effectively and 3 efficiently and track all business employers and their employees. 4 Therefore, the intent of this Act is to require all non-resident workers 5 within the CNMI to have a valid worker's identification card present at all times. 6 Section 2. Enactment. Notwithstanding any laws or regulations to the 7 contrary and subject to proper codification by the CNMI Law Revision 8 Commission, the following new provisions is hereby enacted: 9 "§101. Promulgation of Rules and Regulations. 10 Consistent with United States Labor Laws, the Secretary of the 11 Department of Labor shall promulgate rules and regulations necessary for 12 registering all non-immigrant workers and for effectuating this Act. 13 § 102. Registration with Department of Labor. 14 Upon approval by the United States Department of Homeland 15 Security - United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS- 16 USCIS), all non-immigrant workers must register with the CNMI 17 Department of Labor, who shall record and maintain all necessary files and 18 documentation of all non-immigrant workers; and issue a non-immigrant 19 worker's identification card to all registered non-immigrant workers. 20 §103. Non-Immigrant Worker Fee. 21 The Secretary of the Department of Labor shall, by regulation, 22 impose an annual fee of no less than fifty dollars ($50.00) to all employers - 2 - HOUSE BILL 20-68, HDl 1 for every new/renewal of each non-immigrant worker Identification Card 2 per employee. The fees shall be made payable to the Department of 3 Finance. 4 §104. Fees Revisitation. 5 The fees set forth herein, to include but not be limited to the Non 6 Immigrant Worker Fees, shall be revisited every two years. 7 §105. Non-Immigrant Worker Work Identification Fund. 8 (a) There is hereby established a special fund designated by the 9 Department of Finance which shall be known and designated as the Non 10 Immigrant Worker Work Identification Fund and all the fees generated 11 from § 103 shall be deposited as follows: 12 (1) Seventy percent (70%) to the Department of Labor for 13 enforcing laws related to non-immigrant workers and maintaining 14 records and files of all non-immigrant workers. Provided further 15 that the Secretary of the Department of Labor shall be the 16 expenditure authority; and 17 (2) Thirty percent (30%) to the Department of Commerce, 18 Central Statistics Division for the purpose of filing and recording 19 all data from employers who hire non-immigrant workers. 20 Provided further that the Secretary of the Department of baeeF 21 Commerce shall be the expenditure authority; and - 3 - HOUSE BILL 20-68, HD1 1 (b) The purpose of Non-Immigrant Worker Work Identification 2 Fund is to pay for all the costs necessary for enforcing § 102, non- 3 immigrant workers registration procedures, and all other related purposes. 4 §106. Penalty. 5 Failure to comply with the requirements herein shall be subject to a 6 fine of not less of $100.00 and not more than $250.00 per employee per 7 position. Provided further that funds collected from the fines shall be 8 deposited into the Non-Immigrant Worker Work Identification Fund." 9 Section 3. Severability. If any provisions of this Act or the application 10 of any such provision to any person or circumstance should be held invalid by a 11 court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Act or the application of its 12 provisions to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid 13 shall not be affected thereby. 14 Section 4. Savings Clause. This Act and any repealer contained herein 15 shall not be construed as affecting any existing right acquired under contract or 16 acquired under statutes repealed or under any rule, regulation, or order adopted 17 under the statutes. Repealers contained in this Act shall not affect any proceeding 18 instituted under or pursuant to prior law. The enactment of the Act shall not have 19 the effect of terminating, or in any way modifying, any liability, civil or criminal, 20 which shall already be in existence on the date this Act becomes effective. 21 Section 5. Effective Date. This Act shall take effect upon its approval by 22 the Governor, or its becoming law without such approval. - 4 - HOUSE BILL 20-68, HD1 Prefiled: 413117 Date: 413117 Introduced by: Isl Rep. Blas Jonathan "BJ" T. Attao Isl Rep. Francisco C. Aguon Isl Rep. Edwin P. Aldan Isl Rep. Donald C. Barcinas Isl Rep. Ivan A. Blanco Isl Rep. Angel A. Demapan Isl Rep. Joseph Leepan T. Guerrero Isl Rep. Alice S. Igitol Isl Rep. Glenn L. Maratita Isl Rep. Janet U. Maratita Isl Rep. Edwin K. Propst Isl Rep. Gregorio M. Sablan, Jr. Isl Rep. John Paul P. Sablan Isl Rep. Vinson F. Sablan Isl Rep. Edmund S. Villagomez Reviewed for Introduction purposes only: Isl John F. Cool House Legal Counsel - 5 -