July 22, 2006

The preemption clause: More proof the senate is not serious about enforcement…again

Posted by D.A. King at 5:58 pm - Email the author   Print This Post Print This Post  

“Preemption: a prior seizure or appropriation: a taking possession before others”
Merriam Webster online dictionary.

I am told that the Bush – McCain – Democrat “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006” [ s 2611 ] is more than 800 pages long. If somebody were to try to write a complete explanation of all of the evils contained in this official attempt at repeat capitulation to the open borders lobby , that illustration would likely require nearly as many pages.

I hope someone does exactly that. Doing so is not the intention here, but one very important part of the legislation – “preemption”- should not go un-noted.

Not many people paying attention fail to realize that “comprehensive” is code for amnesty [for illegal employers as well as aliens] and that the senate bill is essentially the same swindle pulled on the American people in 1986. But, with even worse potential results…if one can imagine.

In addition to providing legalization to about four times as many illegal aliens as did the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), … the current bill also repeats mistakes made 20 years ago that will render the border-enforcement provisions and employer sanctions meaningless” writes Charles Hurt in the Washington Times quoting witnesses at recent House hearings.

In the same column Hurt quotes Indiana Rep. John Hostettler, who said the problem with the 1986 legislation was that it allowed legalization before measures were put in place to enforce immigration restrictions and punish those who violated immigration laws.


“Time showed us that IRCA has utterly and completely failed,” he said. “Illegal immigration has not been controlled, but has increased significantly in the past two decades.”

One of the “mistakes” [here I must wonder aloud if something that is done intentionally a second time qualifies as a “mistake’…or an intentional deception – I would point to the latter] that nobody to my knowledge has pointed out is a little gem buried in the bill called “preemption”.

It is very likely that most of the United States senate has not read all of the language in the current amnesty-again bill – or all of the disastrous 1986 legislation. I haven’t either, but more of it than some of the U.S. senators have, I’d wager [so has MALDEF] I have read this part of United States Code that was created in the legislation twenty years ago: Title 8 chapter 12, subchapter II part VIII 1324 a – paragraph ( h )

(h) Miscellaneous provisions

(2) Preemption
The provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.

What Congress told us in 1986 was basically this: Trust us.

We are going to grant amnesty to the black market labor force who we have allowed to illegally “migrate” into our Republic, then we are going to secure our borders and begin to sanction the employers if they “knowingly” hire illegal aliens. We promise.

And…BTW – we will decide what “knowingly” means.


We are in charge of any possible punishment of those employers. We will not allow the individual states to have much ability to go after the money guys when we do not.

Trust us indeed.

The preemption language contained in the 1986 law limits the states and very effectively restricts them from easily passing a simple law that says anyone who hires an illegal alien can be punished with criminal or civil penalties on the state level.

Someone convince me, por favor, that the 1986 conspirators who wrote this paragraph did not fully understand what they were doing then.

They did leave a loophole…the “other than through licensing and similar laws” sentence seems to be the only avenue for states to protect their own citizens from the organized crime that is our virtually open borders, the resulting illegal immigration and the fearless hiring of the millions who are illegally “just looking for a better life”.

The designers of IRCA intentionally made it difficult, but fortunately not impossible, for states to deal with the illegal employers.

Absent the promised federal protection, we have begun to do so here in Georgia, using the loophole. Colorado has also taken important first steps in doing so and many other states – and now county and city governments – are looking at ways to comply with existing law while trying to enforce existing law.

Ironic isn’t it?

Why is the 1986 language discouraging individual states from punishing employers important in understanding the 2006 senate bill?

Because the 2006 amnesty legislation contains the same preemption language.

Section 274 A, paragraph ( j )

j ) Miscellaneous Provisions-

(2) PREEMPTION- The provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.

Sound familiar?

Why would the senate again restrict states from helping to enforce the law? [This is a rhetorical question]

Like Congress in the 1980’s, the 2006 open borders conspirators who inserted this paragraph fully understand what they are doing now.

Few truly believe that it is the president’s and the senate’s genuine goal to secure American borders or sanction criminal employers.

The preemption clause in the senate bill is just one more example of their real agenda.

It isn’t enforcement.

Trust me.