"Judicis est jus dicere, non dare."
(It is the duty of the judge to declare the law, not make it.)
— Latin Proverb
The U.S. Constitution identifies immigration as a federal responsibility.
Today as illegal immigration lays siege to the nation, U.S. citizens are poorly served by the executive branch (the president and federal agencies), the legislative branch (the Democrat-controlled Congress), and now by the judicial branch (with injunctions against enforcement of U.S. immigration law, such as that recently issued by Charles Breyer, U.S. district judge, northern district of California).
The Bush administration for the six years since the 9/11 attack has chosen not to vigorously enforce immigration laws. The Democrat-controlled Congress, beholden to immigration special interest groups, does nothing to prod the administration into action to protect the United States from as many as 38 million illegal aliens and their families.
Illegal aliens are obtaining stolen social security cards and fraudulent driver’s licenses to establish their bona fides to be in the United States. It is common knowledge, except to some federal judges, that counterfeit Social Security cards and other U.S. identification materials are for sale from Algiers to Kiev to Tijuana at whatever cost the traffic will bear — and these documents are first-class works.
To produce a Social Security number, a counterfeiter need only pick at random nine numbers — lazy counterfeiters use the same number many times. Illegal aliens who can not afford the counterfeiter’s fee steal purses or wallets to obtain a number.
When U.S. citizens rose up against the proposed “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation of 2007 (the “Bush-Kennedy” bill), the Bush administration began some belated efforts to control illegal immigration. Targeting the major reason for illegal entry into the United States — money — is the most effective means to slow the tide and effect voluntary departure of illegal aliens. Dry up current economic benefits, and the problem will disappear.
Law enforcement, however, is precisely what immigrant advocates, greed-oriented businesses, "one-worlders," and anarchists do not want. For them, illegal aliens are a money-making, vote-getting proposition.
Only recently have the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) proposed to enforce the employer sanctions set forth in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The DHS and SSA have announced that they will require businesses with employees whose names and Social Security numbers do not match to correct the mistake or if uncorrectable to fire the employee for violation of the “No Match” rule.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the labor unions, and well-connected immigrant advocacy groups, however, are challenging enforcement of this rule by the DHS and SSA. Pro-illegal alien groups filed for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the government from enforcing the IRCA employer sanctions, and they found the right judge.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary injunction that delays the DHS/SSA from proceeding with law enforcement until a full hearing occurs. Breyer is the brother of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, leading liberal on the U.S. Supreme Court. Both men were appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton.
When a worker’s W-2 information does not match the given Social Security number, the SSA sends a “No Match” letter to the employer. Breyer speculated that such a rule would “likely result” in the firing of “lawful employed workers” including citizens and immigrants.
In granting the injunction, the judge is of the opinion, at this stage of the case, that workers will suffer irreparable harm. Judicial speculation is as unacceptable as speculation by a witness or a jury, yet the Breyer injunction was premised upon speculation.
The liberal newsmedia gleefully penned that the judge had chastised the DHS for making a policy change with “massive ramifications” for employers without giving any legal explanation or conducting a “required” survey of the costs and impacts on small businesses.
With all due respect to the judge and to both large and small businesses, ever since 1986, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its local chambers have known the fine points of IRCA employer sanctions. The well-informed business community has been fighting employer sanctions and winning points during the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George Bush I, Bill Clinton, and George Bush II.
The record of failures to enforce employer sanctions is a shame that the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government must live with and for which, they should be held accountable. The Breyer injunction now brings the judicial branch into this hall of shame.
Among the most vociferous advocates of open borders, besides George Soros and his hirelings, is corporate America. Silicon Valley and other high-tech operations pushed hard for “comprehensive immigration reform.” Construction and landscaping businesses, hospitality entities, and nursing and assisted-care companies — all support open borders and cheap labor. Greed knows no bounds.
The almighty dollar means more than the nation’s heritage and ultimate survival.
The Breyer injunction ignores existing U.S. immigration laws — those that define the criminality of illegal entry into the United States and the penalties for “aiding, abetting, harboring, shielding, sheltering, and transporting” illegal aliens. It ignores those laws that criminalize identity theft and the making, altering, or using of counterfeit documents, and last but not least, 18 USC section 1001 that criminalizes the making of false statements to federal agencies or officials.
The recent “No Match” letters to be mailed to businesses by the DHS and SSA were meant to warn employers to get their houses in order, because the time finally had come to start obeying the law. Employers were given 90 days to correct any problems encountered. Remedies exist for honest mistakes where the name of a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant might not match their Social Security number.
As a justification for his injunction, Breyer wrote: “Moreover the threat of criminal prosecution . . . reflects a major change in DHS policy.” Surprise! DHS was doing what it should have been doing and what its predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), should have been doing for the past two decades — enforcing U.S. immigration law.
The attorney generals appointed by President Bush and his predecessors along with the United States attorneys they appointed, have failed to perform their sworn duties to protect and defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Unlike legal immigrants, illegal aliens tend to be both foreign and domestic — as demonstrated by the waving of Mexican flags in street demonstrations demanding more benefits.
The executive branch, the legislative branch, and now the judicial branch fail U.S. citizens by a willful disregard of standing U.S. immigration laws.
The Breyer injunction penalizes the nation by finding that a “decade-long” failure to prosecute employer sanctions negates any further enforcement of the law.
Costs of Non-enforcement
The uncalculated costs to U.S. citizens of the judicial failure to permit enforcement of employer sanctions will be threefold:
1. The United States is in a war against terrorists, who track every nuance of U.S. immigration laws and security control. Hiding out as illegal workers is a perfect cover for terrorists, especially when they are secure in the knowledge that their false documents will not be challenged.
2. Among taxpayer costs are the benefits received by illegal aliens — including education, public health, public utilities, and social welfare.
3. U.S. citizens continue to feel the sting of identity theft, which causes them time, money, and anguish to prove that their lawful Social Security number was stolen or usurped by an illegal alien or counterfeiter. The Federal Trade Commission estimated that 10 million U.S. citizens were victims of identity theft in 2002, and that was five years ago.
Advocates of the radical “New Sanctuary Movement” contend that identity theft is not a crime — when illegal aliens do it. A case in point, Elvira Arellaño illegally entered the United States (a misdemeanor), where she was apprehended and deported; she then illegally re-crossed the U.S.-Mexican border without inspection (a felony).
After having a child (an anchor baby), she migrated to the Chicago area and worked, having stolen the identity of a U.S. citizen. She again was apprehended and convicted of identity theft. When DHS sought to deport her, she took sanctuary in a storefront church, becoming the New Sanctuary Movement’s poster person. Recently she was apprehended and deported once again to Mexico.
Judge Breyer will base his final decision on findings of fact and conclusions of law and its impact on the nation.
Why should the “rights and privileges” of lawbreakers trump those of law-abiding citizens? The costs to identity-theft victims outweigh the benefits to businesses, voter-hungry politicians, and aliens defiant of U.S. immigration law. Coddling illegal aliens by downplaying their criminal conduct weakens the fiber of the nation, undermining the authority of government and putting national security at risk.
Judicial speculation aside, delayed enforcement does not negate or change a law. That is the job of Congress.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.