The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case challenging an Arizona law that regulates the hiring of undocumented immigrants. The case raises the question: Should states be in the business of regulating immigration?
ACS held a preview discussion about the case, Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, during which panelists, while representing differing interests and points of view, came together on the view that a patchwork of state and local immigration laws is not the best U.S. policy.
Business groups, including the name party, the Chamber of Commerce, are opposing the law alongside immigrants' rights and anti-discrimination organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, in an uncommon coalition that may prompt the justices to "come together in this case in a way that their instincts might not normally bring them together," said Sri Srinivasan, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers (pictured left).
Even David Rittgers, a legal policy analyst at the CATO Institute who believes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly decided the case as a matter of law, said he disagrees with the Arizona law as a matter of policy. He dispelled myths that "immigrants equal violent crime" and cited statistics that immigrant workers strengthen, not weaken, the U.S. economy.