无证外籍劳工和德·卡纳斯诉比卡案:最高法院屈服于公众压力

P. Nieto
{"title":"无证外籍劳工和德·卡纳斯诉比卡案:最高法院屈服于公众压力","authors":"P. Nieto","doi":"10.5070/C730020923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a decision rendered this term, the United States Supreme Court in the case of DeCanas v. Bical has held Section 2805 of the California Labor Code2 constitutional, reversing a California Appellate Court decision to the contrary.' Section 2805(a) prohibits employers of that State from knowingly employing an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers. The grounds for the Court's decision included: (1) the regulation was not an unconstitutional regulation of immigration; 5 and (2) the provision was not invalid for the reason advanced by the lower court,' i.e., the regulation had been preempted under the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution by the Immigration and Nationality Act.7 (Hereinafter cited INA).","PeriodicalId":411033,"journal":{"name":"Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Undocumented Alien Laborer and De Canas v. Bica: The Supreme Court Capitulates to Public Pressure\",\"authors\":\"P. Nieto\",\"doi\":\"10.5070/C730020923\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a decision rendered this term, the United States Supreme Court in the case of DeCanas v. Bical has held Section 2805 of the California Labor Code2 constitutional, reversing a California Appellate Court decision to the contrary.' Section 2805(a) prohibits employers of that State from knowingly employing an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers. The grounds for the Court's decision included: (1) the regulation was not an unconstitutional regulation of immigration; 5 and (2) the provision was not invalid for the reason advanced by the lower court,' i.e., the regulation had been preempted under the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution by the Immigration and Nationality Act.7 (Hereinafter cited INA).\",\"PeriodicalId\":411033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5070/C730020923\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5070/C730020923","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在DeCanas诉Bical案中,美国最高法院于本年度作出裁决,裁定《加州劳动法》第2805条符合宪法,推翻了加州上诉法院的相反裁决。第2805(a)条禁止该州的雇主故意雇用没有合法居留权的外国人,如果这种雇用会对合法的居民工人产生不利影响。法院作出裁决的理由包括:(1)该条例并非违反宪法的移民条例;(5)和(2)该条款并不因下级法院提出的理由而无效,即,根据联邦宪法的最高条款,该规定已被《移民与国籍法》(下文引用INA)所取代。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Undocumented Alien Laborer and De Canas v. Bica: The Supreme Court Capitulates to Public Pressure
In a decision rendered this term, the United States Supreme Court in the case of DeCanas v. Bical has held Section 2805 of the California Labor Code2 constitutional, reversing a California Appellate Court decision to the contrary.' Section 2805(a) prohibits employers of that State from knowingly employing an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers. The grounds for the Court's decision included: (1) the regulation was not an unconstitutional regulation of immigration; 5 and (2) the provision was not invalid for the reason advanced by the lower court,' i.e., the regulation had been preempted under the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution by the Immigration and Nationality Act.7 (Hereinafter cited INA).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信