Friday, May 9, 2008 10:32 MDT
Idaho Business Review
subscribeWANT THREE FREE ISSUES?
Daily EmailDaily e-mail updates
ADVERTISING? | CLASSIFIEDS | GOT A TIP? | TOP LIST | RETURN TO HOME RSS 2.0 CONTACT US at 208.336.3768
SEARCH ARCHIVES
See stories on: Idaho Companies Idaho Industries Idaho People

Idaho Business News

Federal court rejects Canyon County's illegal immigration lawsuit

POSTED: 13:24 MDT Tuesday, March 25, 2008

by Associated Press

Article Tools
Printer friendly edition Printer-friendly
E-mail this to a friend E-mail this
RSS Feed RSS feed
Digg this story Digg It!
Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us

Tags -  Canyon County, immigrant labor

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected an attempt by Canyon County commissioners to sue businesses that employ undocumented workers. In the decision handed down Friday, Federal judge A. Wallace Tashima says the county can’t prove that it suffered any harm as a result of businesses hiring undocumented workers.

Canyon County commissioners claimed the undocumented workers increased the county's tab for indigent medical care, schools and jails. The appellate court found that a government entity can’t sue to recoup the costs of being a government entity.

The lawsuit marked the first time a government tried to use federal laws designed to target organized crime to demand damages from businesses for the costs of allegedly illegal employees.

7 Comments

  1. Boy are the courts screwed up!!! How on God's earth can it be OK for businesses to hiring illegal aliens? This defies common sense!!

    Comment By Milt Smith
    Wednesday, March 26, 2008 @ 9:21 AM

  2. I agree with you. If this is the precedent the 9th court wants to set, then morally/ethically we can't be upset about undocumented workers living and working here. I would like to read exactly how the judge justified his ruling. Why does it hinge on "proven harm" done?!

    Comment By ajg
    Wednesday, March 26, 2008 @ 12:44 PM

  3. Try reading the decision, Milt, and you too, ajg. Being as critical as you are without any knowledge of the rationale of the decision is just silly. "How on God's earth can it be OK . . .?" That's an argument? Typical of the anti-immigrant crowd. Speak first, think later.

    Comment By Mr. Contrarian
    Thursday, March 27, 2008 @ 12:50 PM

  4. Mr Contrarian:

    I understand this is a passionate argument but you misunderstood my point(or I wasn't very clear). I am trying to point out the contradiction of the decision. How can it be illegal for someone to be here if in turn it isn't illegal to hire them?! Doesn't this seem strange? You're right I haven't read the decision and need to google it for a better understanding. I am NOT anti-immigration. Heck many of the immigrants I know, be it legal or not, are better Americans than many natural born citizens. I was asking an innocent question and I don't think it deserves the insult in your post. I was hoping someone would have the answer to the judges ruling.

    Comment By ajg
    Friday, March 28, 2008 @ 8:53 AM

  5. Take away the demand and the supply goes away. Tear down the border walls and slap heavy fines and other punishment on employers that hire illegally. That would take care of the problem.

    The real criminals are the businesses who hire illegal aliens, not the immigrants who are looking for a way to make ends meet.

    Our policies are to burn the aliens on a cross and then look the other way when it comes to the employers who are knowingly hiring them. That's just counter-intuitive.

    If INS quit patrolling the borders and spent its time cracking down on businesses that employ these folks - you'd see the problems evaporate in two years.

    Comment By Benji Ronno
    Friday, March 28, 2008 @ 12:49 PM

  6. Well said!

    Comment By ajg
    Friday, March 28, 2008 @ 1:08 PM

  7. The most overturned court in the land. Is it any wonder.

    Comment By Hold
    Saturday, March 29, 2008 @ 7:38 AM

Leave a comment
Leave this field empty

Name:

Email:


You have characters left.

Commenters, let's maintain a civil discussion here. Please observe the following guidelines:

  1. Do not use profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
  2. Do not personally attack or bait other commenters.
  3. Express your own views; don't just argue for argument's sake.
  4. Sarcasm doesn't work on the Web. Either avoid it or clearly label it so you aren't misinterpreted.
  5. Don't make the same point repetitively.
  6. No spam. Link to a commercial site only if it's relevant to the discussion.
  7. Putting your name on your comments increases their value and credibility. However, if you must conceal your identity, please choose one pseudonym and stick to it. No "sock puppets."