Each year SCOTUS hears around 70 to 80 cases. However, nearly 8000 cases per year are appealed from the federal judicial system to SCOTUS. That means 99% of federal judge's rulings are never questioned. Apparently, today's federal judges are well aware of those statistics.
In recent weeks much has been made about SCOTUS's refusal to hear a case in which a federal judge ruled Missouri residents attending Kansas universities had no standing to file a lawsuit against the state of Kansas for providing in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants while charging out-of-state citizens significantly higher rates in violation of federal law, section 505 of the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Reconciliation Act of 1996.
Now another federal judge has made a strikingly unconstitutional ruling against states' rights to set and enforce their own employment regulations. In the decision Judge Cauthron granted an injunction against an Oklahoma law that requires employers to use the free federal e-verify system to confirm residency status before hiring an employee.
Cauthron claimed “federal law prohibits use of the Status Verification Systems to verify employment eligibility.”
In recent week's even President Bush, who is arguably one of the strongest supporters of amnesty for illegal immigrants stated in an executive order that "[i]t is the policy of the executive branch to enforce fully the immigration laws of the United States, including the detection and removal of illegal aliens and the imposition of legal sanctions against employers that hire illegal aliens [and E-verify] provides the best available means to confirm the identity and work eligibility of all employees that join the Federal workforce."
This executive order seems to stand in stark contrast to the alleged federal law that prohibits the use of e-verify to prove employment eligibility.
But the activism at the federal level doesn't stop there. In another recent ruling a federal judge's ruling seems to open the door to identity thieves.
Judge Harry Mattice said that using false social security cards to gain employment is not technically breaking the law. We're wondering then if Judge Mattice wouldn't mind if we used a false social security card to open a bank account, get a credit card, and get one of those sub prime home loans we've been hearing are all the rage? Or is it just illegal immigrants who aren't breaking the law by using them?
These recent decisions are nothing new. In the last couple years we have seen a rash of federal judges throw border patrol agents in jail for defending themselves and protecting the border from drug smugglers, human traffickers, and a whole host of other criminal elements.
So while our representatives bicker over one type of immigration reform or another and our state governments struggle with how to protect themselves against the failings of federal law enforcement, it is the federal judges that are creating a de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants and the criminal employers who hire them despite clear evidence that it is the will of the people to do just the opposite.