What States Are Doing on the Border Crisis

APTOPIX Mexico MigrantsBefore Friday night’s DACA-gutting immigration bill was passed in the House, rookie Majority Whip, Steve Scalise (R-La.) had been getting pounced on by the liberal media for his “inability” to push wavering House Republicans into getting something out the door before the recess-break. Ever since the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill was introduced last year, the media has claimed that it’s Republican intransigence that is obstructing immigration and border security “reform.”

Whether true or not, it’s important to point out that this has never been the case for our conservative representatives at the state and local-level. In 2007 alone they introduced over 1,500 immigration bills in state assemblies across the nation with 240 being enacted into law. They’ve been just as busy since, probably because they’ve had to. The problems from decades of open-borders faced by state and local governments are getting ever closer to crisis-proportions. Given that Friday’s much improved bill will surely not survive the Senate’s or Obama’s chopping block, it may be time to reassess what our representatives at the state-level can and have been doing to deliver true patriotic immigration reform.

In a newly published book of academic essays about state-level immigration regulation, Strange Neighbors, immigration law guru Kris Kobach declares that “every state is a border state now.” Indeed, immigration-induced problems are the “new normal” for most state governments which will be compounded by a perennially underperforming national economy and budget-busting pension and welfare obligations. Drawing on Milton Friedman’s statement that “you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” Kobach reminds us that “[a] massive influx of individuals who either pay very little in income taxes or evade income taxes entirely, but consume public services at a relatively high rate, is costly for any receiving state.” This is clearly seen in the predominately Democrat-run “sanctuary cities,” which have some of the most unstable governments in the nation.

Despite the flurry of state and local bills over the past few years, states have been restrained from regulating immigration where it really hurts: education costs. It’s now estimated that around 50 percent of the increase in the national school-age population going forward will come from illegal aliens. But in the landmark 1982 decision of Plyer v. Doe, statutes denying free education for illegal alien children were deemed unconstitutional by a bare majority of the Supreme Court. In a display of ignorance startling even for liberals, then-Chief Justice William Brennan wrote for the court that “few if any illegal immigrants come to this country… in order to avail themselves of a free education.” On the contrary, says John Eastman, constitutional lawyer and fellow contributor to Strange Neighbors, a free top-notch education is “one of the three great magnets” for illegal aliens to come across our border – the others being employment and birthright citizenship.

According to Brennan in the Plyer decision, the statute in question (which originated from Texas) was struck down because “the record in no way supports the claim that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State.” Although there may not have been a lot of data available to counsel for Texas then, that was over 30 years ago and we now have a ton of statistics on education costs from illegal immigration. According to a 2010 report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the largest cost of illegal immigration to states today is, in fact, education. Just in Arizona that year alone, it cost taxpayers close to $1.5 billion. It now looks likely that what was missing for Brennan can now be met.

In 2011, Alabama attempted to build such a challenge to Plyer. It enacted a law that sought to gather information on education costs of illegal aliens and how it affected state-wide education in general. Although it sought to merely gather data, the statute was immediately challenged by treasonous lawfare groups, like the SPLC and ACLU, and implementation of the law has been delayed. But for states hoping to turn off the education magnet, Alabama’s efforts are instructive.

Since Plyer, Eastman reminds us, the Supreme Court has made some positive shifts towards states’ rights, as seen in such cases as US v. Lopez, US v. Morrison and Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. It is hoped patriotic state legislators and attorneys general across the nation will follow Alabama and take up similar legislative initiatives. Considering our congress is compromised and our president wants the borders erased, it may be our only hope.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Ray Burke

    “We have seen the enemy and they is us !!!” We seem to harbor a death wish !!!

  • bob e

    hope they ordered massive amounts of glue for the millions of glue sniffin’
    cholos that are now to be favored sons .. we only have barry o’fraud to thank
    for this .. you know the guy that put the fake ‘in yo’ face birth cert on whitehouse.gov .. you know .. the hawiian guy with the connecticut ss number ..

  • Lanna

    These open borders are so detrimental to our country…they allow diseases and all the elements of undesireable people to infiltrate and destroy America.

    • Mo86

      That’s the whole point.

  • Fed Up

    I’ve been watching the political scene since about ’67 and for 25 years I’ve propounded a theory that a split, perhaps even civil war, would eventually be brought on by some jurisdiction somewhere in our country standing up and saying No to our increasingly overbearing and dictatorial Fed Gov’t and standing their ground. At that point we’d see troops move against fellow Americans and the game would be on. Even I never dreamed our gov’t would operate so openly and lawlessly against our country and its citizens as we are now witnessing.

    Lately, I wondered if one of these governors would have the stones to deploy their National Guard units to secure their border or something like it down the road. At that point, the question is will we then see the Fed gov’t enforce the illegal invasion of our country at the point of a gun against its own citizens? Could this be the issue, now or someday soon, that brings that confrontation on? If not this, there will be more and more like it until one day it finally comes to a head. And now, one of those governors has taken that step.

    I figured such a day would probably come by century’s end but not in my lifetime. Now I’m not so sure. It seems like it’s all coming off the rails and our gov’t is racing pell mell towards despotism and open war against its own people and that my predictions are coming to pass before my eyes.

    Because if fostering and supporting an illegal invasion of our country against the wishes of the vast majority of its people by foreign hordes of illiterate, uneducated, unskilled, unassimilable peasants, many of who are criminals, to fan out and overload our social services, hospitals, schools, courts, jails and low-end job market is not an act of war, I don’t know what is. Short of military ops, that is.

    But stayed tuned for those military ops, I’ve got a feeling they’ll be here sooner than we know and then all might have the scales fall from their eyes.

    • Drakken

      To put it as PC as I possibly can, it won’t be state or local government that takes matters into their own hands, it will be Joe Average citizen who has had enough, and deals with the problem by the tried and true method that ranchers and farmers along the border now employ, Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up. The Farmers and Ranchers have had enough and no longer allow the Border Patrol on their lands and have them posted as such and now deal with the problem themselves, this will come to a small city near all of us soon.

      • Fed Up

        I agree, indeed, we’ve also seen a stark example of that in the citizens of Murietta, CA spontaneously coming to together to physically bar and stop the Fed gov’t from its mission. That’s a first in my recollection and incidents like that will increase as time wears on.

        But local jurisdictions are manifestations of the citizens values and sentiments and they too will begin to act in behalf of their citizens. They will have to at some point because a relatively small gathering of citizens can be scattered like geese if the gov’t gets serious. A state or county gov’t putting its resources in opposition to the Fed gov’t is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

        In fact, just such an episode occurred in New Mexico about ’92-’93 when the BLM forbid a county from extending a local road through “BLM land” so it’s citizens would no longer have to drive 30 miles around. The BLM said no and posted officers at the line, the county was determined to proceed and posted sheriff deputies at the job site and shots between the two were exchanged briefly when the dozers rolled.

        Much more serious episodes are in our future I’m certain until a critical mass is reached and then its katie-bar-the-door.

        • Drakken

          You can take it to the bank my friend.

  • FrankLivingston

    I might go to the border and buy a bunch of bus tickets and give them out so they can go to my USELESS Rep. David Price (DENONcrat-NC) home town and spread their hope and brightness to the community of Chapel Hill, NC.