Thursday, July 10, 2008

Federal Judges Granting De Facto Amnesty

Around this time every four years there is a lot rhetoric from both Democrats and Republicans regarding Supreme Court justice nominations. But all the perceived power of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is nothing compared to the hundreds of federal judges that sit in their courts and make their own laws on a daily basis.

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.


Bull E. Vard said...

I know we have different opinions on this topic and I respect your opinion in this well thought out post.

BUT, I can't let In the last couple years we have seen a rash of federal judges throw border patrol agents in jail for defending themselves go. I'm assuming you're talking about Compean and Ramos. In that case the agents shot a fleeing suspect in the bum, realized they made a mistake, left him for dead and then tried to cover it up. That is NOT defending themselves, that is attempted murder. Those 2 clowns are not indicative of the vast majority of border control agents and any attempt to portray them as such is insulting to law enforcement everywhere.

James said...

People are going to disagree on how the issue of illegal immigration should be handled, I get that. But there is no doubt the system is broken. What we don't need is blatant disregard for the law, hence my posts.

Agents Ramos and Compean were two of the agents I was speaking about in the statement you listed. If you actually look at the facts of the case, I think you and any other reasonable person with objectivity will see things aren't as they were portrayed by the prosecutor and judge in their case.

"According to TJ Bonner, President of the National Border Patrol Council, the following is what occurred: Checking on a tripped sensor near the river, Agent Compean discovers footprints and drag marks -- a tip-off that a load of drugs has just been smuggled across the river. Spotting a vehicle leaving the scene, Compean radios the vehicle's description to agents covering the road ahead. Realizing he's been spotted, the smuggler turns around and heads back toward Compean. According to Bonner, when the smuggler bails out of his van to make a run for the river, he fails to obey Compean's numerous commands to stop. After a brief physical struggle, the smuggler begins running toward the river again. When he turns and points something shiny at Compean, the agent, believing his life is in danger, opens fire. Agent Ramos, hearing gunshots, comes to Compean's aide. He too shouts for the smuggler to stop, but this man once again turns around and points at Ramos. Ramos fires one shot. He appears to miss as his target turns and disappears into the bank of the Rio Grande. Border Patrol agents return to the suspicious van and look wide-eyed at almost 800 pounds of marijuana, worth about a million bucks on the street. Agents seize the payload and it seems like they've done their jobs. But a bizarre turn of events and an apparent miscarriage of justice would soon find Ramos and Compean on the wrong side of the courtroom."

Of course, we all know the innocent mexican that was shot after turning and pointing what appeared to be a gun at the agents is now in jail in the US for getting caught again smuggling drugs into the country. So the testimony of one, repeat criminal drug smuggler, who would say anything to avoid jail time, is of greater weight and significance than two Latino American Border Patrol agents? I think not.

But aside from the obviously controversial case above, I was referring to an incident that involved a Sheriff's deputy. He witnessed a white van's failure to stop at a stop sign. When the deputy pulled the van over he approached the driver. At that point the driver put the car into reverse and attempted to run the deputy over. The deputy pulled his service weapon and fired into the wheel well twice in an attempt to disable the vehicle. The van then took off, but crashed.

Unbeknownst to the deputy an illegal immigrant was tucked inside the wheel well of the van. She died from the bullet wounds she sustained. The van also held nearly ten other illegal immigrants. They were being smuggled into the country.

The deputy had no idea they were aboard and was only defending himself from the drivers use of his vehicle as a deadly weapon. Today that deputy sits in jail.

Coincidentally, the same prosecutor that gave immunity to the illegal immigrant in the Ramos and Compean case in exchange for his testimony against the agents also prosecuted the Sheriff's Deputy in this case.

There are several other examples as well.

Anonymous said...

Our government is not setting a good example about obeying laws. When the average Joe witnesses countless examples of why he shouldn't obey the laws...

-illegal immigrants & sanctuary cities
-prison over-population
-meager sentences handed out to serious criminals

...then you breed the anarchial mindset of intentional lawlessness. Expect the crime rate to soar over the next few years as the trend has been doing since the 1960's.