The US supreme court has upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to shut down businesses that hire illegal immigrants, a ruling arising from the fierce national debate on immigration policy.
The court's majority opinion, written by its chief justice, John Roberts, rejected arguments by business and civil rights groups and the Obama administration that the Arizona law conflicted with federal immigration law and must be struck down.
The supreme court's decision could spur other states and cities to adopt their own tough anti-immigration measures.[,Arizona immigration law upheld by supreme court, Reuters, Thu May 26, 2011]
This decision has huge implications. For starters, it means that similar laws can now be debated in every state legislature in the US-a forum in which big money and big media simply don't have the same influence in as they have the Federal government.
I would also suggest the Arizona law is simply the start of what is possible. For example: why shouldn't the employers, landlords and investors that profit from illegal immigration be held responsible for health care expenses incurred by illegal aliens?
That measure alone would help to better fund health care in the US-and would greatly improve service in Emergency Rooms in many parts of the US.
Employers, investors and landlords that profit from illegal immigration should be regarded as accomplices to any violations of state laws committed by illegal aliens they employ or harbor. Few illegal aliens would stay in the US without access to US jobs.
If an illegal alien drives while intoxicated, deals heroin, or murders someone while in the US, those crimes wouldn't be committed in the US if various employers, investors and landlords were not facilitating illegal immigration.
The property used by those business interests can simply be seized, liquidated to compensate victims of those crimes(and to pay for the incarceration of illegal alien criminals)and gotten into the hands of more law abiding business interests.