Posted by Frank James at 11:53 a.m.
While much of last week's attention was focused on the Senate as it grappled, unsuccessfully, with immigration and border enforcement legislation last week, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy gave little noticed testimony before a House committee that provided another dimension to the problem.
Appearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing last Tuesday on the federal judiciary's budget, Kennedy was asked by Rep. Todd Tiarht (R-Kan.) if the federal courts had any control over the number of cases they handle.
Kennedy's answer was illuminating. He said the nation’s weak border enforcement is contributing to an explosion of criminal cases, placing an extraordinary burden on federal courts in the nation’s southwest.
“We have a serious problem in five districts in the U.S.,” he said. “There are 94 district courts in the U.S., 94 districts. Five of those have 35 percent of the criminal workload and none of those are in metropolitan areas, well San Diego.
“There’s the southern district of California, the district of Arizona, the district of New Mexico, western Texas and southern Texas,” Kennedy said. “Those are not metropolitan areas. Thirty five percent of the criminal case filings in the entire system.
“So we’re very concerned, number one, in those districts that they don’t have to simply suspend the civil dockets,” Kennedy added. “So we send judges from all over the country to assist them. Article Three judges can sit on any court,” he said, referring to the section of the Constitution under which the federal judiciary was empowered. “This, of course, is directly related to cross border immigration violations and drug importations.
“It used to be that Florida was the problem,” Kennedy said. “But interdiction of both smuggling and illegal traffic in aliens by sea and air has been very effective in Florida. And that pushes the pressure, a wise market the criminal market, the immigration market now takes the land route. You see that… it’s a serious problem.”
To me, this was a revelation. I don’t recall seeing much reporting about this problem. It’s yet one more arrow in the quiver of those who support much tougher border enforcement either alone or in combination with immigration reform.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Does anyone who has done even modest research on immigration in the past four years really consider this a revelation? What Kennedy said should be obvious to every reporter in America, but sadly most major media outlets have been taking the day off on immigration coverage for some time now.
Posted by: Bill | April 10, 2006 1:59 PM
Hey, Lets just build a wall, then we adopt Mexico's immigration laws. Just simple as that. Cliff
Posted by: cliff zeider | April 11, 2006 7:53 AM
I fear what's happening is that the issue of "illegal" aliens and that of "legal immigration" has its line blurred by the acrimony of the situation. News reports proclaim headlines "Immigration marchers demand..." when in actuality it should read "Supporters of illegal aliens demand...". With this kind of generalization how long after the "illegal alien" issue is resolved will legal immigrants--those who waited and played by America's rules to become a participating legal resident-- become a target soon enough? How soon until someone says "Well there's too much of 'THEM' already..."?
My parents came to this country legally NOT because they wanted a free handout, but because they wanted to participate in something larger than themselves: a democratic society where freedom allowed my parents to work hard and contribute to a nation they can feel pride in being part of building. I would hate to see someone generalize them with those who entered illegaly and have their faith in this nation faltered by misguided nationalism, nativism and bigotry.
Posted by: Tony | April 11, 2006 10:40 AM
HERE IN CALIFORNIA WE ARE OVERRUN WITH ILLEGALS, EVERYWHERE! THEY ARE SUCH A DRAIN ON OUR SCHOOLS,THEY GET WORKMEN'S COM. NO QUESTIONS ASKED!! WHAT ARE THE POLITICANS AFRAID OFF!!! THEY CAN'T VOTE!!!! THEY ARE ILLEGALS, THEY BROKE THE LAW. LET'S NOT HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS FOR CITIZENS WHO OBEY ALL THE LAWS AND ILLEGALS WHO OBEY NONE!!!
Posted by: DOROTHY COSTELLA | April 11, 2006 4:01 PM
I understand that both sides of this issue have valid points. My concern is that we will be offering amnesty to those who are here illegally. If our laws had been in force in teh first place, we may not be in this predicament. If the law is unjust, then repeal the law. You will lessen people's respect and trust in the laws of the land if you repeatedly ignore them. And, in this ccase, ignoring the existing laws hoping for political gain (that the claas of individuals reaping the benefits will now vote for you and your party).
Posted by: Paul | April 11, 2006 4:26 PM