Too Tough on Illegal Immigration

<p>In earlier posts I’ve argued that, as immigration reform continues to stall in Congress, state and local jurisdictions will fill the vacuum by passing their own anti-immigrant laws and ordinances.<br />

<br />

Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times addressed the subject in an editorial, <a title="Too Tough on Illegal Immigration" target="_blank" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-oklahoma21feb21,0,6658324.story" id="i973">Too Tough on Illegal Immigration</a>.

The Times noted that, in the past, such regulations were challenged successfully, the courts ruling that immigration was a federal reserve, but that now the courts tend to uphold state and local legislation.&nbsp; Giving special recognition to my favorite anti-immigrant state, the Times said that &quot;The Oklahoma ruling is particularly pernicious.&quot; There, the court ruled: &quot;An illegal alien, in willful violation of federal immigration law, is without standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state law, when compliance with federal law would absolve the illegal alien’s constitutional dilemma.&quot;<br />

<br />

The Times’ conclusion?</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&quot;Harsh laws and deportations may satisfy the popular hunger for instantaneous immigration reform, but the result will be a legacy of anguish and resentment among millions of people who aren’t going anywhere.&quot;</p>