Each of the remaining presidential candidates should be asked these two vital questions: Should state and local governments be viewed as cookie jars handing out tax-paid government benefits to people who are here illegally? Or should state and local officials have the right to deny benefits to illegal immigrants, especially when doing so helps insure that more resources go to legal and needy residents? How these two questions are answered will tell voters much about which of the candidates truly support the rule of law, as well as help voters understand the kind of judges the candidates would appoint to the federal bench.
More than 200 state laws and numerous local ordinances were passed last year to deal with the federal government’s abysmal failure to protect our nation’s borders. Pro-immigration groups vowed to have the newly enacted statutes overturned, and after a few initial victories, it seemed they would prevail. However, recent federal court rulings upholding immigration laws in Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma gives new encouragement to local officials who are desperate to ease the burdens imposed by the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants presently in the country.
Recommended Stories
When Hazleton, Pennsylvania, passed the nation’s first crackdown, making it illegal to knowingly hire or rent to illegal immigrants, U.S. District Court Judge James Munley ruled it unconstitutional on equal protection and due process grounds. Munley’s decision gave more constitutional protection to illegal immigrants than to American taxpayers.
Thank goodness not all of Munley’s fellow federal judges agreed with his cockeyed thinking. Federal Judge Neil Wake rejected the argument that Arizona’s ban on hiring illegal immigrants somehow usurps federal authority to regulate immigration. After all, if the feds had been exercising their authority in the first place, state and local governments wouldn’t need to protect its citizens from hordes of uninvited guests.
Federal Judge Richard Webber also rejected the argument offered by the ACLU that the working class town of Valley Park, Missouri – population 6,500 – was attempting to usurp federal prerogatives and run all Hispanics out of town. Valley Park’s anti-illegal immigration ordinance was simply a municipal permit, he ruled, not an attempt to interfere with federal jurisdiction. Then, Virginia’s Prince William County likewise withstood a legal challenge to its ordinance authorizing police officers to check the immigration status of arrestees and denying illegals some county-funded services. These three decisions are a good start, but we still have an incoherent federal immigration policy. The men and woman still seeking the White House should lay out specific answers on how they will finish the job.
