PHOENIX: The governor of Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the United States — signed into law Monday a proposal that prohibits people from hiring illegal immigrants and requires all businesses to verify the employment eligibility of workers through a federal database.

The goal is to weaken the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the U.S.-Mexico border .

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano said the law has major flaws, but she acted because the federal government has not done so.

Under the new law, employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants could have their business license suspended for up to 10 days. Second-time violators would have their business licenses revoked permanently.

The proposal would give a measure of legal protection to employers who can prove they have verified the eligibility of workers through a federal records database. Employers would be required to begin using the database next year.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Employer-Sanctions.php

dont laws like this already exist on a federal level? any job i've ever taken requires a social security card to prove legal working status.

Not that stiff of a fine, and they are almost never enforced.

they might exist but no company has followed them.
I dont think they have the stiff penalties like that yet although i will be glad to see them put penalties like that here in arkansas if they ever do . if the democrats keep going like they are I may have to start voting republican next time around because they were all in favor of the amnesty thing only so they could get the votes . how sad i am crushed that the democrats support such a thing . I sent every fax i could an made a few phone calls.

These laws took effect July one, in GA. More are in the bill, but these are in effect now....

The Georgia law includes at least eight proposals addressing different issues. The least controversial ones set mandatory punishment for trafficking a person for labor or sexual servitude and minimum requirements for non-attorneys who offer immigration legal assistance.

One law enforcement measure asks jails to check the nationality of people booked on a felony or DUI charge. Another directs the Department of Public Safety to select and train officers to enforce immigration law while doing their routine duties, like traffic stops.

Another section requires verification that all adults applying for state-administered benefits are eligible to receive them. Georgia residents will need to carry ID such as a passport, an original birth certificate or other papers proving their U.S. citizenship accompanied by a state photo ID to get most public benefits, like food stamps, Medicaid, assistance for paying heating or cooling costs.

Critics say it will create a burden for state agencies and a barrier for citizens like the poor, homeless and mentally ill, who don't commonly carry the proper identification. Supporters argue that the state doesn't have enough money to waste on those who aren't eligible.

Finally, the law requires that all public employers and contractors with more than 500 employees ensure that all their new hires are eligible to work. That provision has been much praised by state officials, including Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle.

"It is critical to our state that businesses are not participating in the hiring of illegal workers and this law sets out specific mandates for employers that are reasonable and fair," Cagle said in a statement Friday.

www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770701011 - 36k - Jul 1, 2007 -

If you really want to read the entire bill, iy can be found here:

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/sb529.htm

now
but how strrong is the enforcement going to be?
plus God bless North America, this is a huge land
you have to enforce similar laws all across the nation
so u r just pointing out a grain of sand in thousands of miles of beach.
VIVA LA RAZA!!!!!1
SOMOS POCOS PERO LOCOS!!!!!!!!!

There are already laws in place that would penalize employers for hiring illegal aliens. Since 1980 at every place I was employed I have had to provide not one but two pieces of identification, a drivers license, Social Security card, birth certificate or Passport, to prove that I was a U.S. Citizen. The problem is you can have all the laws you want but if they are not enforced they are no good. My problem is not and never has been with anyone who wants to come to this country legally and work. My problem has been and always will be with people who want to sneak into this country illegally for what ever purpose. We have to secure our borders. By securing our borders and dealing with the illegals already in this country, it will only benefit those who want to come here to work. They will have to be paid more because the illegal cheap labor market will be dried up.

that has been a very big topic down here..
i have mixed feelings on it.. but it is something that had to be done..

ok thanks for clearin that up.

Forge, we employers have been required to complete an I9 on each new employee but The I('s are kept in our office and not rquired to be forwarded to INS unless requested. I have never had a request to do so from them. The population is pissed. This is the first step and it will be interesting to see what happens next. Personally I think it is like peeing into the wind but it is a start. TLW, we need your posts on billboards.

hi Zap!!!

Hi Alex! Er, ya got somethin' in yer eye there.

Broke a tie rod end on the truck yesterday so I am waiting for my ride. Its 950 gazillion% humidity today! Being greasy under a truck is not how I would like to spend the day.

Awww poor Zap

After working with some illegals aliens I could see why the law had to come about where I used to work. They couldn't speak the language so they didn't complain about their job. They were persistant to the job because even after they got deported they still tried to make it to work. They never threatened to walk out because where would they go. They never threatened to strike because of the language barrier and they did as they were told by the translater because the translater was on a salary paid by the company. Most bosses liked them better because they had enough people to do the job on the line whereas the legal workers were always calling in sick or got angry and quit.

hey JJ..

hi roy


i'd love to see you SWEAT zap...LOL!!!!


i'm going out...bb in an hour or so..

Good morning, Alex.

Then is not just only an issue of the government, it's also the North American people. Hillfolk remarks that his boss at that time prefer illegals because they worked no matter what. That is just an example. If I put myself in a position as an employer ofcourse I'm going to prefer somebody who works no matter what, and get the damn thing done no matter what. Therefore, I guess North American people should raise their work standards (a personal thing to do), so employers start prefering them instead of illegals.
I agree with the fact that enough is enough, the North American government should secure the border, and make policies so is not so attractive for illegals to cross the border. That is the main issue this country is so attracttive for them because the same North Americans keep hiring them, once again is the same people who contribute to illegal immigration.
Then you already have 12 million here, what are you going to do with them, deport them? That is an utopy a fallacy. I would screen them and those who are worthy to stay (non criminals), should stay paying taxes and contributing to the finances of North AMerica.
Furthermore, this great country in the government level should think of foreign policies in a way that for this people is more attractive staying in their countries than risking their lives trying to get into here.

I noticed you said government level, TLW. Exxon tried to open new business in one foreign country and the country nationalized Exxon's holdings in that country. Nationalisation or nationalization is the act of transferring assets into public ownership. It usually refers to the transfer of private assets, but may also mean assets owned by other levels of government, such as municipalities. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization, but may also be municipalization. A renationalization occurs when assets are nationalized after a previous privatization. Nationalizations are distinguished from property redistributions in that in the former case, the government retains control of the property after acquisition. Some nationalizations take place when a government seizes criminal property. For example, the French government seized Renault because its owners had collaborated with Nazi Germany. A key issue in nationalization is whether the private owner is properly compensated for the value of the institution. The most controversial nationalizations are those where no compensation or an amount unreasonably below the likely market value of the nationalized assets is paid, and are known as expropriations. Many nationalizations through expropriation have come after revolutions.

The traditional Western stance on compensation was expressed by United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull, during the 1938 Mexican nationalization of the petroleum industry, that compensation should be "prompt, effective and adequate." According to this view, the nationalizing state is obligated under international law to pay the deprived party the full value of the property taken. The opposing position has been taken mainly by developing countries, claiming that the question of compensation should be left entirely up to the sovereign state, in line with the Calvo Doctrine. Socialist states have held that no compensation is due, based on socialist notions of private property.