In accordance with my post from yesterday, can someone explain to me the madness that is "the law" surrounding [illegal] immigration? I mean, check out this nuttery from (as usual) California:
[The US Supreme Court case] Hoffman [v. National Labor Relations Board] was too much for California legislators who responded by enacting prevailing wage statutes that provided that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's ruling in Hoffman, in determining whether an employee could sue for prevailing wages, his immigration status was "irrelevant."
The matter at hand is a [legal] Bulgarian immigrant, Emil Vassileu, who started a welding and steel-working company called Van Elk, Ltd. Four former employees -- who all turned out to be illegal immigrants -- sued Vassileu because he didn't pay them "prevailing wages" for public works projects the company had been contracted for, as mandated by Cali. law. But the aforementioned Hoffman SCOTUS case (2002) determined that illegal immigrants cannot sue for said "prevailing wages" because OF their illegal status. The SCOTUS said,
... that federal labor laws did not supersede federal immigration laws by ruling, 5-4, that illegal aliens could not sue to collect backpay. The Court noted that labor laws sought to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices, which required employer penalties and sanctions as well as the ability of wronged employees to sue. At the same time, recognized the Court, granting illegal aliens the rights citizens enjoy would both "trivialize the immigration laws" and violate Congress's intent to end the unlawful employment of illegal aliens, which Congress called a "magnet . . . attract[ing] aliens here illegally."
The ever-"wise" Cali. legislators sought to "do something about" this silly 'ol SCOTUS ruling -- the passed their own legislation which basically thumbs its nose at the high court's ruling. The plaintiffs in Vassileu case are using this POST-Hoffman legislation as the basis for the case ... and the Cali. Court of Appeal agreed with them. In addition,
the Court of Appeal rejected Van Elk's lawyers' argument that, by overturning Hoffman, the California Legislature violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
Which begs the question(s): How many times have [liberal] advocacy groups like the ACLU lectured localities that immigration is a FEDERAL matter? So, leaving aside for the moment that the Cali. C. of A. overturned the SCOTUS, how can STATES (or localities) mandate that companies pay "prevailing wages" to people who have broken the law in the first place and should not even be here???
In addition, if California can get away with this, then why couldn't a state pass its own legislation that makes it completely illegal to get an abortion? After all, if Cali. can overturn a SCOTUS ruling about illegal immigrants and "prevailing wages" merely by passing legislation, why not with abortion?
I wonder if, like my erroneous [legal] arguments about student speech from a few months ago apply here. In other words, the Cali. legislation is granting more rights (freedoms?) whereas the hypothetical legislation banning abortion would restrict rights (freedoms). However, I don't think it's as cut and dry as that previous argument was (once it was explained to me). For instance, what about Mr. Vassileu's rights? Aren't they being infringed upon by making him essentially "follow the law to the letter ... for people that are law breakers"? And then again, how can a state (or locality) make laws regarding immigration if that is a FEDERAL matter? Where is the ACLU and the myriad "activist" groups going to court to argue that the state "has no jurisdiction" because only the feds can deal with immigration?
Unbelievable.
The bigger question here is one of enforcement. If the states (California) thumbs it's nose at USSC decisions, who will enforce that decision? The DOJ? Are they doing to intervene? If so, how?
Posted by: Duffy at November 7, 2007 09:42 AM