How to Solve the Illegal Immigration Problem!

Once the borders are secure we must enforce the laws, especially against employers who hire illegal immigrants. The magnet that draws people to this country is the availability of jobs and benefits. The people are trying to solve the problem but have been thwarted by our own government. Take, for instance, Proposition 187 in California. It passed by an overwhelming majority.

Prop 187 was passed by the voters on Nov. 8, 1994 to deny public benefits to illegal aliens in California.

The next day several lawsuits were filed in California state court (Mexican-American Legal Defense/Education Fund (MALDEF), League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), ACLU, and others.
On Nov. 11, 1994 a "temporary restraining order (TRO)" was issued by Federal Judge Matthew Byrne (it was filed in Federal Judge Marianna Pfaelzer's court, but she was out (vacation?), so Byrne did the TRO. An answer was filed by Attorney General Dan Lungren in state court. Judge Pfaelzer came back and issued a permanent injunction pending trial. Her rationale was essentially a case in Texas in the 1980's (Plyler v. Doe). Texas tried to deny public education to illegal aliens. The Supreme Court ruled for the illegals, based on two pillars:

1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and

2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.

The cases were consolidated into Judge Pfaelzer's court in 1995. There were hearings, filings, hearings, filings ...... In 1996 California (Att'y Gen. Dan Lungren) said that Prop 187 was not in conflict with federal law. In September 1996 federal immigration law was enacted, and in 1997 Lungren asked the presiding judge, Judge Pfaelzer for a summary dismissal. (The 1996 federal law included Sec. 133 - that local law enforcement can cooperate with the INS) Judge Pfaelzer said NO to summary dismissal and ruled for plaintiffs; Lungren said he'll appeal. Lungren appealed in 9th District Circuit Court in late 1997. FOR SIX MONTHS LUNGREN TOOK NO ACTION - IT SAT THERE. HE SHOULD HAVE MOVED THE CASE ALONG!

Then came the gubernatorial campaign of 1998, and Gray Davis was elected in November. The appeal process was still sitting silently in court because Lungren had not moved it along. Davis was elected. The plaintiffs requested "mediation" in the 9th District Court, the court agreed to "mediation". We know what happened then - Davis (who vehemently opposed Prop 187) "represented" FOR Prop 187. Neither the proponent of Prop 187 nor anyone else who co-sponsored Prop 187 was allowed in the bogus "mediation". Governor Davis refused to allow the appeal to proceed and dropped the appeal, essentially KILLING PROP 187 against the will of the voters. This after having promised to support the appeal during his campaign.

Even the most vocal plaintiffs against Prop 187 said they were afraid that if it went to the U.S. Supreme Court it would be held to be constitutional, reversing Plyler v. Doe.

Governor Davis refused to allow the appeal to proceed and dropped the appeal, essentially KILLING PROP 187 against the will of the voters. Why didn't they appeal the decision? They didn't want to because they are part of the California government and they don't care what the people want, they are going to do what they want to do regardless of what the people want.

The city of Hazelton, Pennsylvania attempted to solve their problem by making it illegal for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants. The measures, approved by the City Council would have imposed fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and denied business permits to companies that give them jobs. They also would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit. U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled that landlords, tenants and businesses that cater to Hispanics faced "irreparable harm" from the laws and issued a temporary restraining order blocking their enforcement.

"We find it in the public interest to protect residents' access to homes, education, jobs and businesses," he wrote in a 13-page opinion.

Hispanic groups and the ACLU sued Hazleton contending the laws violate the Constitution because they trample on the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration. Mayor Lou Barletta, who spearheaded the law, has argued that illegal immigrants have brought an increase in drugs, crime and gangs to the city. The city's lawyers on Tuesday cited a 10 percent increase in crime between 2004 and 2005 as a reason why the ordinances should be enforced. Munley, however, wrote that the city "offers only vague generalizations about the crime allegedly caused by illegal immigrants, but has nothing concrete to back up these claims."

Hazleton's crackdown, which was announced in June, has spurred other towns to pass similar laws, Municipal officials view the Hazleton lawsuit and a similar one in Riverside, N.J., as test cases. J. Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, hailed Tuesday's decision as an important victory.

"I think what's important is the judge recognized that this ordinance has the potential to cause real harm by costing people their jobs, their houses and requiring children to leave schools," he said.

Some city governments are declaring themselves "sanctuary cities and preventing the law enforcement agents of the city from reporting illegal immigrants to the federal authorities. Did they have a vote of the people of the city to decide whether to be a "sanctuary" city or not? Not on your life. They don't care what the people want, they are going to do whatever their elitist attitudes want them to do. The federal government could close down the "sanctuary" cities by refusing to allocate funds to them but Congress is too spineless to do that. The "sanctuary" city governments and the ACLU would probably successfully sue to force the federal government to allocate the funds to the "sanctuary" cities.

Congress could craft a law that would allow illegal aliens who are employed to register their employment and obtain a "Green Card." The employer would have to agree that the illegal immigrant was working for them. Even "day laborers" would be required to register. They would not be given a "path to citizenship" other than the same opportunity that a legal "green card" holder has. The advantage of such an "amnesty" law would be that illegal aliens would be made legal and would have to pay taxes instead of being paid "under the table."

Illegal immigration could be solved in a very simple manner, but the "ELITES" who inhabit our government don't want to do it. They, like the moneyed interests, are motivated by the fact that they are able to keep the low labor costs that are represented by illegal immigrants.

Credits:

http://www.ccir.net/REFERENCE/187-History.html

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/aclu-judge-block-hazeltons-illegal-alien-ordinances