Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court rendered an extremely important decision–it ruled, by a margin of 5 to 3, that an immigration law enacted by the State of Arizona in 2007 that would punish companies that could be proven to have knowingly hired illegals is constitutional. While much attention has focused on a more recently enacted immigration law in Arizona, SB 1070, the law that was declared constitutional today was signed into law by Janet Napolitano when she was the governor of Arizona. This Supreme Court ruling upholds the concept of “States Rights.” Opponents of this law argued, as it turns out, unsuccessfully, that only the federal government can enforce immigration laws. The argument of pre-emption has been cited by those who oppose having state or local governments take action to enforce laws that seek to prevent the employment of illegal aliens and other facets of the immigration laws. Their arguments, however, were apparently more about making certain that immigration laws were ignored rather than being truly concerned with who would enforce those laws. The Obama Administration provided additional encouragement to illegal aliens by suing the State of Arizona for daring to enact SB 1070 and not saying a single thing about how wrong headed and, indeed, dangerous it was for cities to declare themselves “Sanctuary Cities.” The argument often made by advocates for open borders and amnesty programs is that the illegal aliens will do the work Americans won’t do. In point of fact, study after study has consistently shown that the American worker, of all ethnicities, races and religions are the hardest working and most productive workers on the planet. The advantage to be gained by hiring illegal aliens is that they will work for substandard wages under substandard- in fact, often illegally dangerous conditions. Not only do they displace American workers and at a time that one in five American families lives below the poverty level, but illegal aliens also send as much of their earnings as possible out of the country to their families in their home countries. I don’t blame them for doing this; I blame our government for not attempting to plug this huge economic drain on the American economy and help get Americans back to work! Each year significantly more than 100 billion dollars is sent out of the United States this way. This is money that is not earned by American citizen or lawful immigrants. This is money that is not spent in the United States or invested in the United States. I was happy to provide an extensive declaration in support of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070. Several months ago I testified before the Indiana State Senate about a similar law that, SB 590 was just enacted by that state. Louisiana is now debating its own immigration law and I will be heading to Louisiana next week to provide testimony before a hearing into that bill. The point is that states across the country are clearly determined to do the work the federal government won’t do, enforce the immigration laws that are supposed to protect our nation and our citizens from illegal aliens whose presence in our country may be harmful or dangerous. This Supreme Court ruling demonstrates that under our Constitution state governments have the right to act in the best interests of those who live within those states. It wrests control from the federal government and should put the federal government on notice that if they will not take responsibility to act in the best interests of the citizens of our country that state governments can step in to fill the void. I hope that the Supreme Court will rule in a similar fashion where SB 1070 is concerned. Our nation is indeed a “Nation of immigrants,” however the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.