Now We Can Call It E-Nullify

It was one of the few federal programs which worked well, did something good for America, and was popular with those using it. So it was just a matter of time before it became another casualty of the Obama administration.

To protect the jobs not only of Americans, but also law-abiding immigrants, many of whom devoted years to legally plod the pathway to our country, E-Verify, a method of checking the legal status of job applicants, was established in 1997 to prevent illegal aliens from gaining employment in the US.

The reasoning was sound (and should be our approach for much of our illegal immigrant problem): if you block some benefits of being here from going to those who flout our laws, you can preclude much of the illicit migration before it ever happens and also motivate those here illegally to leave of their own accord.

Arizona went even further. Suffering disproportionately from lax enforcement of both border security and other immigration law, the state enacted bills in 2008 and 2010 to stiffen penalties for both employers and illegal job applicants.

Modeled after existing federal law (decades-old but nearly totally unenforced), Arizona’s much-maligned SB-1070, as well as the earlier law, the Legal Arizona Workers Act,produced dramatic results. Self-deportations shot up and schools, clinics and hospitals reported greatly reduced expenses and fewer unreimbursed costs. Arizona, the state with the most illegal crossings, also saw a significant reduction in those numbers.

The most ironic and laughable result of these laws was the lament of Mexican officials that the influx of their own citizens would place an undue economic burden on their resources.

Enter (stage Left?) Obama’s unilateral Executive (dis)Order granting certain protections to illegals.

It’s bad enough that the line-jumpers now have official permission to stay. What’s worse is Obama’s intention to provide them with Social Security style ID numbers so they can effectively impersonate American citizens.

Previously, even employers who favored illegal hiring had to abide by the law or risk hefty penalties. Subsequently, even if employers want to hire only legal US citizens, they’ll have no practical way of knowing the difference. Another part of America’s rule of law will have been nullified by the Countermander-in-Chief.

The argument that they’ll pay future taxes is an empty one. The majority will be working in low-paying jobs where the income tax collected is minimal or non-existent. But this misses the greater points that any jobs available and taken would produce the same tax revenue whether done by natives or by foreigners, and that millions more Americans may be displaced from jobs and driven to welfare at a time when tens of millions are already out of work.

And please stop the blather about illegals paying back taxes and having criminal background checks. How can you effectively do either when any employment has been largely off the books and most of their lives have been spent in countries where we have no jurisdiction?

Whether it’s releasing terrorists, bankrolling bogus green energy or regulating the economy to death, for six years Obama has pursued policies which undermine America’s interests. But his latest action dumps on a major part of the Democrat constituency: minorities and the poor. No longer having to face elections of any consequence, he feels no constraints against “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

There was a time when criminal extortion in Obama’s home state was what you had to pay to protect your job. But at least with gangster “protection” rackets, some palm-greasing was all it took to maintain your employment. Under Obama’s put-America-last policies, US citizens have almost nowhere else to turn.

The new Congress being seated next month may offer some hope. Otherwise we face the twin prospects of now-legitimated illegal entrants, coupled with their being illegally rewarded with jobs that Americans need.

Decent people have always agreed that two wrongs don’t make a right. But not all emperors are decent.

"It was one of the few federal programs which worked well, did something good for America, and was popular with those using it."

Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution’s Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause (1.8.4) and the slavery clause (1.9.1) aside, interpretations used to justify federal immigration laws, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution.

Here’s the related excerpt from Jefferson’s writings.

“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.

And here’s the related excerpt from Madison’s writings.

"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...
…
… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.

Also note that the Supreme Court has clarified in general that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution, the power to regulate immigration in this case, are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.