Illustration of Federalism The Immigration Debate - Assignment Example

Task Illustration of Federalism – The Immigration Debate Why are so many s passing immigration reform measures? Are all of these measures the same?What is a common thread of many of these bills?Many states are passing immigration reform measures because the federal government has not addressed the issue of illegal, immigrants and they continue to stream in all the states. The laws are not the same, but they have some similar legislation such as offering some form of identification other than the driving license, not employing immigrants, and rejecting admissions of immigrants to schools.

Briefly describe the key provisions of SB1070.Supporters of SB1070 claim that illegal immigration is a particular problem in Arizona. Why is this so?Who is responsible for enforcing immigration law in America?What are the views of those opposed to the law? What are the views of those in favor of the law?The provisions of SB1070 proscribe government agencies from going against the immigration laws set by the government. Police should not discriminate people according to their race and goes on to list the proofs of identification that someone can use to prove their citizenship.

The law states that it is illegal for a person not to carry a foreign identification if they are illegally in the state. The law also allows residents of Arizona to sue any government society that is found not following the laws of immigration. It prohibits people who are hiring labour from taking up illegal immigrants. The law further stipulates that fines will be given to anyone who does not follow the immigration laws.Supporters of SB 1070 say that illegal immigration is a problem in Arizona since the resources in the state are taken up by people who do not belong to the state, and that the illegal immigrants have bought with them many evils in the state such as drugs from the Mexico border.

Government agencies are liable for imposing immigration law in America since they have the jurisdiction to take the necessary action.Views of those in opposed to the immigration law are mostly the immigrants who are there legally, and they say that they feel threatened by the strict laws since they may be targeted because of their heritage. Those in favor of the laws feel that it will keep the state safe from the evils that the immigrants bring to the state, and residents will have access to all resources.

What are the key arguments on both sides of the debate over SB1070? What were some of the problems with the law according to the federal judge?Which provisions of the law did Judge Bolton allow to stand?What is the federal government’s interest in opposing the Arizona law?What is the “next step” for those supporting SB1070? There is already a case on the US Supreme Court’s docket related to immigration and the state of Arizona. What is it? Why might this case be significant?The key argument of the debate over SB1070 is that it will waste state’s resources rather than use them for other development purposes.

The federal judge (Judge Susan Bolton ) was opposed to the laws requiring police officers to check a person’s identity while implementing other laws, and the one requiring immigrants to carry their foreign identification documents or risk being charged. However, she preserved the policies that require all entities to abide by the immigration laws and the restriction of hiring illegal immigrants as daytime workers.The interests of the federal government in opposing the Arizona law are political and economic in that the government aims to increase its economic stability by using the immigrants.

The political reasons are in getting support from many people in order to get votes during elections.The next step for those supporting SB 1070 is to ensure that all illegal immigrants are caught up with and are removed from the state.The case in the Supreme Court is whether the ruling made by Judge Susan Bolton should withstand. It is significant since it will determine the procedure government agencies will use to deal with illegal immigrants.List some of the provisions of the nation’s toughest immigration law.

According to Ms. Bauer from the Southern Poverty Law Center Department, why is the law unconstitutional? Explain the view of Mr. Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State who sides with Alabama. Why does he think the federal preemption argument of the federal government is a dead end?Ms. Bauer states that the precedent that the Court must view when considering this case. What is it?How does Mr. Kobach explain this problem?How does Ms. Bauer counter this assertion?The toughest laws are those of the Alabama law and some of them are that it:1.

Forbids illegal immigrants from receiving any state or local public benefits2. Restricts illegal immigrants from attending public colleges3. Prohibits illegal immigrants from applying for or requesting work4. Outlaws citizens from renting property to illegal immigrants5. Prohibits consciously employing illegal immigrantsAccording to Ms. Bauer, the law is unconstitutional because it is racist and entails arresting people merely due to suspicion.Mr. Kobach feels that people do not understand when and how the law requiring police to ask for identification works.

He argues that the police have a hot line where confirmation of the person’s identity can be done. He explains that the Alabama laws do all the things that the Federal Laws stipulates and those in their own laws. Who is challenging Alabama’s anti-immigration law? What are their main arguments?Why is this issue particularly thorny in Alabama?What did the federal district court decide?How have federal courts decided similar cases?Thousands of protestors including church leaders, various activists, and other countries are challenging the Alabama immigration law.

Church leaders are on the front line, and their argument is that the law restricts the church and religion from practicing ministry. This issue is dominant in Alabama since the church leaders have come together to address the issue as an organized opposition.The district court decided that the Supreme Court should make clear the complaints raised by the church. The federal court has decided similar cases by explaining the provisions, and asking for amendments where issues are found to be contending.

What steps have House Republicans taken to address immigration?What provision of the US Constitution addresses citizenship?There is one Supreme Court case, which addresses children of illegal immigrants. What is it? What did the Court rule?The House of Representatives have ordered that when immigrants are found, they should be deported to their country of origin. This step is illustrated by the fact that Republican Lawmakers introduced legislation that would put to a top the automatic granting of citizenship to immigrants’ children.

This is done through the introduction of a legal challenge to the 14th amendment of the constitution that grants rights to the children of immigrants as citizens. In the United States constitution, citizenship is addressed by Section 301 of the constitution, the section that deals with the Immigration and nationality act. This section clarifies the classes of citizens born in the country, who are, therefore, citizens of the country by birth. The fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution addresses citizenship, and it states that United States citizens are, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (Walenta).

A Supreme court case that dealt with the issue of children of illegal immigrants was the case Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), in which the case decided whether the State of Texas had to provide free public education to the children of illegal immigrants. After the case, the ruling was that the second clause of the 14th amendment included equal protection for all children. Work CitedWalenta, Craig. The United States Constitution, 2011.Web. September 21, 2011.