Supreme Court Rules For Prosecuting Illegal Aliens For Identity Theft

Only identity theft? I mean, what about the fact that they’re here illegally? No?

I feel like the priorities are just a little off.

Why does this come across as the illegals are such a protected class? Maybe because they are, since I have yet to hear a valid response from the dems as to why they want so many illegals here.

Clearly the math doesn’t add up for economic reasons, it doesn’t make sense in the healthcare realm, it is ridiculous to have them part of the voting system since they’re UNDOCUMENTED… so, why else have them here illegally unless it’s for an easy, pander-y Democratic vote?

Moving on.

In Kansas, it surfaced that three restaurant workers had been employed fraudulently under the Social Security numbers of other individuals and happened to be illegal immigrants.

Upon the convictions, SCOTUS provided more leeway for individual states to prosecute illegal aliens for identity theft.

These particular prosecutions encouraged speculation about which federal immigration laws barred states from prosecuting accordingly.

The Syllabus explains:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it unlawful to hire an alien knowing that he or she is unauthorized to work in the United States. IRCA requires employers to comply with a federal employment verification system.

Using a federal work-authorization form (I–9), they “must attest” that they have “verified” that any new employee, regardless of citizenship or nationality, “is not an unauthorized alien” by examining approved documents, e.g., a United States passport or an alien registration card.

IRCA concomitantly requires all employees to complete an I–9 by their first day of employment and to attest that they are authorized to work.

Every employee must also provide certain personal information, including name, ad- dress, birth date, Social Security number, e-mail address, and tele- phone number. It is a federal crime for an employee to provide false information on an I–9 or to use fraudulent documents to show work authorization.

Kansas makes it a crime to commit ‘identity theft’ or engage in fraud to obtain a benefit. Respondents, three unauthorized aliens, were tried for fraudulently using another person’s Social Security number on the W–4’s and K–4’s that they submitted upon obtaining employment. They had used the same Social Security numbers on their I–9 forms. Respondents were convicted, and the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed.

A divided Kansas Supreme Court reversed, concluding that §1324a(b)(5) expressly prohibits a State from using any information contained within an I–9 as the basis for a state law identity theft prosecution of an alien who uses another’s Social Security information in an I–9. The court deemed irrelevant the fact that this information was also included in the W–4 and K–4. One justice concurred based on implied preemption.

The Daily Wire reported:

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court’s majority, stated, “The Kansas statutes under which respondents were convicted are not expressly preempted. IRCA’s express preemption provision applies only to employers and those who recruit or refer prospective employees and is thus plainly inapplicable … The theory that no information placed on an I–9 could ever be used by any entity or person for any reason—other than the handful of federal statutes mentioned in §1324a(b)(5)—is contrary to standard English usage.”