Oh my!

[LaughingOtter]

Hence my comment on the Constitution being a living document...

[Tantalyr]

Hence my comment on the Constitution being a living document...

Now that's a whole 'nother interesting can of worms . . .

What does it actually mean that the Constitution is a "living" document? One viewpoint, espoused by Justice Scalia and the Federalist Society, is that the Constitution can only be changed by specific amendment, not by judicial fiat (also known as "interpretation") or some legislatively enacted law.

The opposite end of that spectrum--usually associated with Justice Kennedy--is the view that the Constitution was deliberately worded broadly, and in some instances vaguely, so that it can morph via subsequent judicial fiat/interpretation to keep pace with the times.

Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. Seems to me that clear and specific Constitutional mandates can NOT be changed through judicial interpretation, while the more vague limitations and guarantees by necessity MUST be amorphous and subject to change via judicial interpretation.

A good example of this quandry is the Court's decision last term that the execution of inmates who committed crimes while they were under the age of 18 violated the Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment." Now the Constitution nowhere states that executing inmates for committing crimes while juveniles is "cruel and unusual." Nor does the history of the American judicial system support such a view, as any number of such executions have gone forward in the past 220 years. Indeed, the five-member majority admitted as much in their opinion.

But on the other hand, neither does the Constitution define the term "cruel and unusual punishment." So a pretty good argument could be made that what might not have been deemed cruel and unusual punishment 200 years ago (e.g., English criminals at one time were subject to drawing and quartering) might well be so today.

Big, but interesting, can of worms that.

[LaughingOtter]

Indeed.

That's why I'm glad to see this case going forward. I think it's better for the country in the long run that the arguments be made, weighed & measured, and deliberated rather than simply dismissed out of hand. Dismissing the issue smacks of oppression, and oppressing dissent only makes it stronger and more widespread, as so many dictators have learned firsthand. The best way to build support for a cause it to try to stamp it out.

If this case has no merit whatsoever, it will not stand. If it does have merit, it deserves to be heard.

[Tantalyr]

Interestingly enough, just yesterday the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears appeals from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) ruled that illegal aliens (i.e. non-citizens) nevertheless have a Constitutional right to be free from excessive force by American authorities. See the story here.

What Constitutional rights non-citizens have is another amorphous area that the Constitution itself does not specifically address.

[Alladania]

My problem with the whole thing is that the farm owners have the potential of being punished either way. They face legal issues for retaining illegal immigrants and now face legal issues (and financial concerns - because lawsuits cost real people real money) because they chose to follow the law and fire the illegal immigrants. I don't believe they should be penalized for obeying the law. If the illegal works want to sue someone, bring a case against the government for declaring that they had to be legal to work here. Or, better yet, try to become legal.

[Dravatar]

...What Constitutional rights non-citizens have is another amorphous area that the Constitution itself does not specifically address...

It is interesting to follow. This same concern would also apply to those in Guantanemo, not just illegal immigrants.

[Magnir]

Bottom line is this:

It's illegal for illegal immigrants to be hired to work in the U.S. So Entity A (farming company) had to regretfully lay off its illegal-immigrant workers.

So why is it even allowed for said illegal immigrants to sue Entity for following the letter of the law? If they retained these workers would they not eventually be found culpable of another offense?

Seems to me that someone just wants to screw over Entity A, not that most of us don't feel that they deserve it in the first place, but that's beside the point.

[TheHaunt]

Sometime in the 1990's, an option became available to employers... called the H2A Visa.

The H2B visa category allows U.S. employers in industries with peak load, seasonal or intermittent needs to augment their existing labor force with foreign workers. The H-2B visa category also allows U.S. employers to augment their existing labor force when necessary due to a one-time occurrence which necessitates a temporary increase in workers. Typically, H-2B workers fill labor needs in occupational areas such as construction, health care, landscaping, lumber, manufacturing, food service/processing, and resort/hospitality services.

Agriculture businesses can have similar benefits through the H2A.

Also, please note the application information at U.S. Department of Labor H-2A Certification

I remember it because I come from a strongly farming area in Kentucky. Suddenly, farmers were importing workers through this program, providing them housing and food, and paying them below what they could pay locals to do farm work,even though the certification says they are to be paid the same.. I know for a fact they were paid minimum wage in most cases (mostly in hay, tobacco and cattle).

The thing was, when this visa was established, it was intended to be a temporary visa for supplementing workforces in seasonal situations... but, once those workers got to my home county, they didn't leave... and proceeded to invite their relatives... and when the H2A expired, then the workers and their families were ALL illegals... Basically the floodgates opened and where immigrant workers were a rarity, now they are common, and entire communities of illegals live there now.

I respect people who want to work hard to make their situations better. I just feel there are LEGAL ways to do it. I personally find it annoying that there is an argument involving the "immigration problem", when to me, it's should really come down to enforcing our immigration laws.

... just my perspective...

[Tantalyr]

It is interesting to follow. This same concern would also apply to those in Guantanemo, not just illegal immigrants.

Indeed, Dravatar, indeed.

Not to derail this thread (much) but the principal issue I saw with the Guantanamo "detainees" was the refusal by the government to call them either fish or fowl. It seemed obvious to me (and certainly to a majority of the Supreme Court this past term) that either these detainees were PoW's, and thus subject to all the guarantees under the Geneva Convention, or criminals, and subject to all the guarantees of the American criminal justice system. But the government made up a new term--"detainees"--and wouldn't afford them the guarantees under either system.

But as I mentioned, the High Nine resolved that problem last term.

[MadDwarf]

thats all nice and stuff.

Obviously something has to be done about the streaming flow of illegals into the United States. But I wonder if we will be willing to pay $5 for an orange or apple should farmers actually have to hire americans to do the work. Considering most feel they are above that kind of work and wouldn't pick produce or work in a farm for anything less than $10 to $12 an hour.

But thats a whole new can of worms since a living wage in this country is a line that has never been defined. When leeching off the system is more profitable than actually working. So now farmers are used to hiring illegals at a wage they think they can afford to pay. I also seem to remember a debate in the early 90's that the hiring of these workers was more to do with the fact they couldn't get locals to do the work. Hence a labor shortage.

[TheHaunt]

At least in my experience, growing up on a farm, in a farming area, it wasn't that the "local legals" woudn't do the work... they didn't want to do it for 12 hours a day at $4.00 to $5.00 an hour... when they could work (back then) at McDonalds for the same money and not have to sweat and strain as much... to get "locals" farmers would have to pay them like twice that much, and that really starts cutting into the profit of your crops, etc etc...

Anyway, there are a lot of issues that can be linked to this topic... all of them can generate very emotional responses, both pro and con...

[snickel]

In Germany a large part of the industry has come to rely on underpaid workers -- they hire college students, or people who are forced to almost work for free to continue receiving unemployment benefits or illegal workers.

The situation is such that what was an exeption earlier on has become the rule.

I would say that the heart of the problem lies in the fact that people see it as normal and defensible that workers do not get the wages they need to live a decent life.

[Sigi]

In Germany a large part of the industry has come to rely on underpaid workers -- they hire college students, or people who are forced to almost work for free to continue receiving unemployment benefits or illegal workers.

The situation is such that what was an exeption earlier on has become the rule.

I would say that the heart of the problem lies in the fact that people see it as normal and defensible that workers do not get the wages they need to live a decent life.

wholeheartedly agree!