Judicial Immigration Legislation

The next big problem we will be sure to see in the movement for illegal immigrant amnesty will be judicial legislation on the issue. Why would the judicial branch (particularly the Supreme Court) get involved in this issue when the Constitution of the United States grants them no permission to do so?

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states:

"Congress shall have the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

The activist judges of our country like to refer us to the 14th Amendment when they usurp this power for themselves. The 14th Amendment states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.

Knowing most people who read this realize this obvious fact, please do not feel insulted as I point out the Constitution of the United States ONLY applies to United States citizens - NOT legal or illegal residents. The activist judges of America seem to not understand this although they they used to.

In the 1915 case of Heim vs. McCall, the Supreme Court upheld New York's authority to show preference in hiring New York citizens for transit authority projects. Justice Joseph McKenna wrote:

"The basic principle of the decision of the Court of Appeals was that the State is a recognized unit and those who are not citizens of it are not members of it. Thus recognized it is a body corporate and, like any other body corporate, it may enter into contract and hold and dispose of property. In doing this, it acts through agencies of government. These agencies, when contracting for the State, or expanding the State's moneys, are trustees for the people of the State....And it has hence decided that in the control of such agencies and the expenditure of such moneys it could prefer its own citizens to aliens without incurring the condemnation of the National or the state constitution."

The Court specifically rejected the argument that the 14th Amendment precluded states from discriminating against non-citizens in the distribution of public benefits. In other words, the Court ruled exactly as the Founding Fathers intended.

The 1927 case of Ohio ex rel. v. Clarke Deckebach Auditor, the Court reinforced the Heim decision. A merchant in Cincinnati, who was a resident alien and a subject of the British Empire, was denied a license to operate a pool hall because city ordinances required that such licenses be issued only to U.S. citizens. Once again, violation of the 14th Amendment was cited. In a unanimous decision, Justice Harlan Stone wrote:

"Some latitude must be allowed for the legislative appraisment of local conditions...and for th legislative choice of methods for controlling an apprehended evil. It was competent of the city to make such a choice, not shown to be irrational, by excluding from the conduct of business an entire class rather than its objectionable members selected by more empirical methods."

That was the last time the Supreme Court would restrain themselves from usurping judicial rule over immigration and naturalization. Over the last four decades they have determined not only that aliens - even illegal aliens -are "persons" as defined in the 5th and 14th Amendments, but also that their status is increasingly indistinguishable from that of U.S. Citizens.

In the 1969 case of Graham v. Richardson, the Supreme Court ruled aliens had the right to state welfare programs.

In the 1973 case of Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, the Supreme Court ruled that citizenship was an unconstitutional requisite to holding a government job.

In the 1973 case of Sugarman v. Dougall, struck down New York's law that all civil servants be U.S. Citizens. This ruling effectively ignored the precedent of the 1915 case of Heim vs. McCall. The only dissent in the ruling was the honorable William Rehnquist.

In the 1973 case of In Re Griffiths, the Supreme Court ruled that a state could not deny non-citizens the right to take the bar exam and become licensed, practicing attorneys - again, citing the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment.

In the 1977 case of Nyquist v. Mauclet, the Court decided it was unconstitutional for New York to require resident aliens to at least apply for U.S. Citizenship before becoming eligible for financial aid for education.

In the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, struck down a Texas law that allowed local school districts deny enrollment to children of illegal immigrants. Justice William Brennan, writing for the 5-4 majority went so far as to extend the term "person" in the 14th Amendment to include illegal aliens, by virtue of their physical presence in the United States. Maybe you should read that again.

As you can plainly see, the Supreme Court of the United States not only usurped the power to pass legislation relating to immigration and naturalization but they gave illegal immigrants near-equal status as U.S. citizens. This horrendous precedent should not go unnoticed because, as the debate over illegal immigration heats up, we are bound to hear of "Supreme Court Precedent" over and over again. Unfortunately, we will not be hearing about the 1915 and 1927 rulings that upheld American sovereignty!

Please Note: All information presented in the above paragraphs was derived from Chapter seven of Mark Levin's book, "Men in Black." This book, which describes how the Supreme Court is effectively destroying America, is a New York Times best seller and is the absolute best source for information about judicial tyranny in America.

You can purchase this book on Amazon.com HERE.