In 2013 I published a paper in an international peer-reviewed journal,
“Dealing with Uninvited and Unwelcomed Guests: a Survey of Current
State Legislative Efforts to Control Illegal Immigration Within Their
Borders” (Int. J. Public Law and Policy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2013). At the
time, the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet weighed in on the
Constitutionality of state efforts to enforce federal immigration law in
answer to the Obama Administration’s refusal to enforce the law. (No
president from Reagan through Obama has made any significant effort to
enforce the law, which explains why after President Reagan provided a
general amnesty to most illegal aliens, effectively reducing the number
of illegal immigrants to near zero during his time in office, we find
ourselves with more than 12 million illegal aliens today.)
When
the Obama administration challenged the Constitutionality of Arizona’s
efforts to enforce federal immigration law within its borders, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled most (but not all) such efforts to be
Unconstitutional, holding that only the federal government (read:
Congress, the legislative branch) can set immigration law and only the
federal government (read: the President, the executive branch) can
enforce federal law.
Leaving aside for the moment the
legality of an executive order that prevents enforcement of current
immigration law for 5 million illegal immigrants, permitting them to
stay and work in the U.S. in direct violation of current immigration
law, it is a good idea for the general public to have access to
accurate information as to the legal issues involved so that they may
make make an informed decision on both the legal and social issues
involved for themselves rather than formulating an opinion based on the
conflicting views expressed by legal experts in two-minute segments on
the evening news or cable news channels.
The
issue is far from settled, but one thing is clear: if we do not learn
the lessons taught by the unintended consequences of failed previous
attempts at immigration reform, we are doomed to repeat them. If we
have learned nothing from Reagan’s blanket amnesty which at least had
the benefit of having been achieved through legal, Constitutional
channels (e.g., an act of Congress signed by the President (rather than
by an executive order or questionable validity issued by a petulant
President upset at having his ideology soundly rejected in the 2014
midterm elections) in the 1980′s we will once again most likely triple
the current numbers of illegal aliens in the next 30 years if another
blanket amnesty is given (and amnesty is what is at issue here, by
whatever name and means it is effectuated).
Reasonable people
may differ on this as in most any controversial social or political
issue. I welcome a reasonable debate based on the facts and an ensuing
immigration reform that is implemented in adherence to the required
Constitutional process. Whatever else may be open to rational debate,
the Constitutional process for passing laws at the federal level is well
settled and beyond dispute: a bill is approved by both the House of
Representatives and the Senate and is then signed into law (or vetoed)
by the President. There is also no dispute as to whosae prerogative it
is to set immigration and naturalization law in the U.S. as that power
is exclusively given to Congress in Article I Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution.
For my part, I’ve published two
scholarly articles on the issue of illegal immigration in peer-reviewed
law journals the past five years that are relevant to the current
debate. In the future, when my research agenda permits it, I intend to
write a general reference guide to immigration law. For now, you can
find the text of the entire article referenced above at the publisher’s
site by clicking on this link
and then on the PDF or HTML versions of the article from the Journal's
main page. (You may also cut and paste the following URL to your
browser: http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/35147130346915u6/
A second earlier article on the subject, “Illegal Immigration:
Economic, Social and Ethical Implications” Victor D. Lopez, North East
Journal of Legal Studies, 22 (Fall 2009), 45-65 (2009), is only available
in print and not online at this time. I will obtain permission from the
NEJLS to reprint it here and/or on my primary blog at victordlopez.com
in the near future. [UPDATE:: The article has been digitized by NEJLS and is now also available for free download at http://nealsb.info/j2009.html]
