A New Problem in Protecting Against Unlawful Immigration - Litigation
By Marion Edwyn Harrison (06/25/08)
Consistent with the early 19th Century, and remarkably prescient, de Tocqueville observation, the Federal Government effort to fence out unlawful immigrants seeking to cross the Mexican Border now reaches litigation. This column upon four occasions has discussed ramifications of attempting to secure the Border by fence construction and related means - April 9, 2008; April 5, 2007; October 4 and December 7, 2006, columns following, by way of background.
Now comes the case styled Texas Border Coalition v Michael Chertoff, et al assigned in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to respected Judge Reggie B. Walton. He is a 2001 President George W. Bush appointee, long on relevant prosecutorial, defense, judicial and other experience and the recipient of a number of awards, including several from organizations composed of his fellow Blacks. There has been, and will be, no serious challenge to his objectivity.
The Texas Border Coalition is a voluntary and unofficial organization comprised, according to the Complaint, of “a group of counties, Chambers of Commerce, and Economic Development Commissions located approximate to the [Mexican Border in Texas].” The strong force behind the Complaint, its Counsel appearing unabashedly by name and affiliation, is the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, a California-based entity which, often successfully, litigates and otherwise promotes leftist causes.
A motivation for the litigation appears clearly to be that Plaintiffs are happy for reasons including monetary, social and just-plain pro-Mexican immigration. Thus, they do not want a substantial diminution of immigration activity and of economic intercourse between their areas of Texas and the adjoining Estados Unidos de Mexico. The Complaint - at least superficially cleverly - combines a bundle of technical allegations, purported Constitutional arguments and, needless to say, allegations of harm were there to be a substantial reduction in the cross-Border status quo. This Commentary is not the place to analyze the merits per se of the litigation.
However, it well may be interesting to follow its course, particularly if it grows to the stage in which evidence is adduced. At that point the objective observer might learn even further reasons why unlawful immigration should be curtailed and, more ideally, eliminated.
It also may be interesting, if more pedantic, to observe the jurisdictional course. Rarely does this Commentary advocate, or even lean toward, Federal pre-exemption. This writer is a Federalist, in the Founding Father’s intended sense of the concept - as much governance in the States and localities rather than the Feds as possible. However, Plaintiffs in this case are not exercising local powers of governance but are banded together to attempt to block the Federal Government’s exercise of its clearly national role of regulating immigration. Further, pragmatically what may be beneficial for a portion of the Nation already somewhat “Mexicanized” may not be beneficial for the Nation at large.
Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation: http://www.freecongress.org/
1) http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2006/061207.aspx
2) http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2006/061004.aspx
(Printer friendly version) 
Send Feedback
