Supreme Court`s Whiting Ruling Gives Patriots A Memorial Day Present

George W Bush
was one of the worst enemies of
patriotic immigration reform, but we need to give him
credit for the appointments of Samuel

and John Roberts to the

Supreme Court.

Both men ruled in the majority to
uphold the
Arizona Workers Act

Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting.

wrote the majority opinion
—while Obama`s

“Wise Latina”
Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent.


activist judges
made disappointing and even
outrageous decisions in lower courts in the last year

SB 1070

Hazleton PA`s Illegal Immigration Relief Act
, this
is a huge victory and reason to celebrate.

Ironically enough, it was

George Bush`s failure to enforce our laws
prompted Arizona to enact the LAWA in the first place.


1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act [IRCA]
designed as a compromise—it was to give amnesty to a

number of illegal immigrants, while at the
same time outlawing the employment of illegal immigrants
which would have presumably ended the problem of illegal

But under George W Bush`s first term,

sanctions against employers of illegal aliens virtually
As`s Ed Rubenstein

, from 1997 to 2004 the number of illegal
aliens detained in workforce raids decreased from 17,554
to159 and the number of employers who were sanctioned
plummeted from 865 to just three. (Then the government
changed the basis of reporting, preventing further

Against this backdrop, then-State Rep.
(now president of the Arizona State Senate)

Russell Pearce
pushed through the

Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007
. LAWA required
that all new hires in the state go through the E-Verify
system to ensure that they are here legally, or else the
hirer could

lose its state business license
. Knowing that an
even tougher version would be made into a ballot
initiative if she vetoed the measure, then-Arizona
(now Obama Secretary of Homeland Security)
Janet Napolitano

signed the bill.

While Arizona`s SB 1070 is seen

the seminal state level immigration law,
prior to
its passage LAWA was already the strongest state level
bill in the country. It is arguably an even more
effective deterrent to illegal immigration. As we are
constantly reminded, most illegal immigrants

are here to work

commit other crimes
and go on welfare. Of course,
this doesn`t change the fact that they impose huge


fiscal costs
on American citizens. But it does mean
that taking away the jobs magnet will tend to make
illegal aliens self-deport.

And this worked in
. Before the law was
enacted, the media was filled with headlines like

has illegal immigrants leaving Arizona
" The Arizona Republic,
December 19, 2007]

expected, the Open Borders lobby tried to sabotage the
democratic process through a frivolous lawsuit, filed by
Chamber of Commerce along with Chicanos por la Causa,


, the ACLU, and the
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. They had the

of the

Obama administration
, the

American Immigration Lawyers Association,
Hispanic Bar Association, the ADL,

Southern Poverty Law Center,

LULAC, La Raza, and dozens of other business and ethnic
groups. (It`s worth noting that Sotomayor, who wrote the
dissent, was a

member of La Raza

on the board

Watch, Eagle Forum, Numbers USA, and FAIR`s Immigration
Reform Law Institute all filed briefs in favor of


issue was IRCA`s provision

“any State or
local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other
than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who
employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment,
unauthorized aliens.”

should have been an open and shut case, in that IRCA
here explicitly allows state regulations of licensing
laws. But, needless to say, with enough creative lawyers
the Chamber of Commerce managed to argue that the law
implicitly barred states from issuing sanctions dealing
with licensing unless someone had also been sanctioned
by federal immigration authorities (which of course,
never happens.)

A panel of
judges from the

9th Circuit Court of Appeal
from the Justices who recently upheld an injunction
against SB 1070) upheld LAWA. It went to the Supreme
Court last December. Roberts` decision held that
“other than
“other than
but also reaffirms a great deal of

state authority on immigration.

the fact that the

and company tried to make the argument that
states have no authority to issue immigration authority,
they are now arguing that this ruling is very narrow and
won`t have any effect on the immigration debate as a
whole. According to

Cecillia Wang,
director of the

ACLU Immigrants` Rights Project:

"Today`s decision is a narrow one
that only upholds Arizona`s specific law on employment
verification. The decision has nothing to do with SB
1070 or any other state or local immigration laws. We
are disappointed with today`s decision and believe it
does not reflect what Congress intended."

Court Upholds Arizona Employment Law in Narrow Ruling
ACLU Press Release, May 26, 2011]

is arguing that the decision was based almost solely on
the belief (wrongly in its opinion) that Congress had
explicitly granted states the authority to regulate
business licenses. Therefore, anything that Congress
does not explicitly grant states the right to do on
immigration is not affected by this ruling.

Fortunately, this is wishful thinking on the ACLU`s

In some
respects, LAWA is farther-reaching than SB 1070. LAWA
actually adds a new regulation in Arizona—mandatory
—which is not required by the Feds, while

SB 1070 merely mirrors federal law
and applies it to
law enforcement.

Furthermore, Roberts` decision resolutely reaffirms the
1976 case Decanas vs. Bica
where the Supreme Court unanimously held that California had the authority to enact
employer sanctions against the hiring of illegal
immigrants long before the federal government made this
law in IRCA. In other words, they recognize that the
right for states to discourage immigration does not need
to be explicitly granted by Congress.

Even if
the ruling established no precedent beyond E-Verify, the
effect still goes far beyond
. Other states that have
passed immigration enforcement bills include Georgia,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Indiana. In
fact, the

ACLU sued Indiana
over its law just the day before
the Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting decision. The

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals,

the Illegal Immigration Relief Act in

Hazleton, PA
, is expected to

now defer to the Supreme Court`s opinion
early next

importantly, the ruling in
Whiting will
provide support for a national E-Verify measure. In the
wake of this decision, Cheap Labor lobbyist

Tamar Jacoby
]now appears resigned to the fact that it will
pass, noting

“Lamar Smith is
expected to introduce a bill in coming weeks mandating
that most or all employers across the country enroll in
the E-Verify program. Just what today`s ruling will mean
for that bill is unclear. But it only increases the
already good odds that Smith`s bill will move easily
through Congress.”

says her new goal (and therefore immigration patriots`
top concern) is to make sure that “worksite
enforcement must be accompanied by programs that allow
the foreign workers we need to enter the U.S. legally”

US Supreme Court ruling on Legal Arizona Workers Act,
Immigration Works
,, By
Tamar Jacoby, May 26, 2011 (pdf)]

I will
write more about the national E-Verify fight in a future
column. But, as Jacoby shows,

immigration patriots` statewide measures
are forcing
the federal government finally to move forward to the
point that we are on the verge of this even bigger

As we celebrate our troops on

Memorial Day,
we should also give thanks to Russell
Pearce, IRLI, and the
other patriots who are making sure that there is still a
country left to fight for.

"Washington Watcher" [email
] is an anonymous source Inside The