For decades, liberals have frustrated conservatives by doing end runs around laws they detest by seeking redress in courts laden with activist judges appointed by previous liberal administrations. Now that Republicans have been unable to secure the needed votes to alter outdated and poorly worded laws related to asylum and unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants, perhaps it’s time for the GOP to play the same game.
In fact, now that Democrats have taken control of the House and adopted a platform essentially welcoming open borders, it may indeed be the courts that provide conservatives with their last Hail Mary pass to save America's sovereignty.
And it would fall under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to prevent states from passing laws that would subject those in protected classes — with blacks being the first such protected class — from being denied an equal application of laws as applied to the white majority. The umbrella of the amendment has since grown to include myriad additional classes and has even been held to apply to the federal government, as well as the states.
As a consequence of identity politics, there has been a remarkable amount of pandering to illegal aliens over the past decade. So much so, that it can be truthfully said that in a few cases, illegal aliens are now provided more rights than some of our citizens.
Case in point: A citizen criminal does not get the same protections afforded an illegal alien lawbreaker who is assisted by local police in avoiding apprehension from federal authorities. If California state police have information on the whereabouts of a California citizen who is on the lam as a suspected felony murderer, they would assist federal agents in arresting the murderer.
But simply put the words "illegal alien" before the murderer’s name, and, suddenly, the state police will shield the criminal from federal apprehension by failing to even communicate with the feds about the murderer.
Or ponder this: An American citizen of Mexican or Canadian decent is not afforded the same opportunity to bring in under-majority aged relatives from their home countries, as are those from countries in the Western Hemisphere outside of Mexico and Canada.
In fact, the legislation related to unaccompanied minors definitively states that if young Mexican or Canadian aliens seek to cross our border without documents they are sent back, yet minors from any other country are allowed to stay here. I can’t think of a single rational basis for such a dichotomy. No one from any country should be released into the mainland without proper documentation.
And what of the businessman who correctly points out that the state places him or her at a competitive disadvantage when it refuses to enforce its laws prohibiting hiring from the illegal underground economy? Think about it: A contractor wants to do the right thing by paying his employee a livable wage, with health benefits and workers compensation coverage. Meanwhile, his competitor picks up a few day laborers, and pays them off the books.
The good guy is either forced to follow suit by skirting the payment of the legally required workers comp, or simply go out of business. If implementation of discriminatory laws can violate equal protection rights, it would stand to reason that a conscious decision by state authorities to selectively refuse to enforce our immigration laws to the detriment of a segment of our society (i.e., law abiding contractors) would be just as wrong and unsupportable.
And what of state universities that ask applicants about their criminal histories.
Checking yes on the box could often lead to a quick no to admission. Yet, the crime of crossing the border illegally is not only disregarded, but in many states, you may qualify for taxpayer assisted tuition breaks, despite the illegality. Does the applicant denied for his prior marijuana bust have a gripe that he or she has less protections than the person who broke our laws entering the country illegally?
It would make for an interesting debate.
More importantly, it would probably give proponents of border sovereignty more hope than holding out for a Democratically controlled House to do anything to close the loopholes that have precipitated a new tidal wave of illegal aliens overwhelming our southern border.
Steve Levy, former New York state assemblyman, Suffolk County executive, and candidate for governor, is now a distinguished political pundit. Levy's commentary has been published in such media outlets as Washington Times, Washington Examiner, New York Post, Albany Times, Long Island Business News, and City & State Magazine. He hosted “The Steve Levy Radio Show" on Long Island News Radio, and is a frequent guest on high profile television and radio outlets. Few on the political scene possess Levy’s diverse background. He’s been both a legislator and executive, and served on both the state and local levels — as both a Democrat and Republican. Levy published Bias in the Media, an analysis of his own experience, after switching parties, with the media's leftward slant. Levy is currently Executive Director of the Center for Cost Effective Government, a fiscally conservative think tank. He is also President of Common Sense Strategies, a political consulting firm. To learn more about his past work and upcoming appearances, visit www.stevelevy.info. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.