Should the Status Checking of Suspected Illegal Immigrants be Legalized - Essay Example

Evaluation Legislations Brief Background Information Over the past few years, United s has attracted threatening number of unauthorized aliens. Pressure build up has marred the states based on how the aliens arrest and detention. Besides, discriminating against immigrants seeking jobs in United States. The contentious issue here is a general rule that removable aliens should no beheld criminally if they remain in Arizona. The fact that aliens should not be detained by state officers checking the immigrations conditional is another contention as this conflicts the provisions of the federal government (Magaña, Lisa, and Erik 17). Allowing local and state officers to advance warrantless arrest suspected removal alien arrest conflicts federal government provisions. Obama has also been noted to have recently held that unauthorized immigrants should not be deported following the increased tensions. It is upon these premises that Arizona Immigrant Act was coined drawing a lot of dissenting argument with respect to the impacts it had on federal, states and immigrants themselves. Contentious section two (B) calls for officers arresting, putting aliens to custody and stopping aliens to consider verifying the aliens conditions with laws of Federal ((Magaña, Lisa, and Erik 22). The paper circumvents around the Arizona S.B. 1070 statute enacted in 2010 aimed at addressing salient issues involving the threatening and ever increasing number of unlawful aliens in the state (Doty, 2009, p. 176). The dispute was triggered US advocating the preemption of the Act by enjoining it (Magaña, Lisa, and Erik 101). Dissatisfaction arose when the District Courts pegged injunctions on four provisions on the Immigrants act blocking their coming into effect. With respect to section three, it guarantees strict compliance with federal alien-registration constraints as state misdemeanor while section 5(C) renders the Act a misdemeanor for unlawful alien to indulge in US workforce. In addition, section 6 avails avenues for local and state offices to arrest aliens without a warrant so long as the officer has a probable cause to believe that the unauthorized alien is guilty and renders him removable. Discussion In this essay, I will support the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court against the detention of a removable alien who has remained in United States. On the hand, I will rebut the unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court judges to uphold the most contentious provision allowing the officers to check the immigration status (Evans & Fred 134). This provision is bad because it opens avenues for prolonged, unnecessary detention of aliens unlawfully but thumps up the Courts decision to attach strings limiting the powers of law enforcing officers handling the immigrants issues. Allowing the state officers to act as immigration officers attracts a lot of controversies to federal laws. The federal government, the congress, employers and unauthorized aliens seeking jobs are the losers if this bill would be upheld by the Supreme Court. To criminally hold removable aliens who have remained in the states by detaining them as immigration status is being cross-examined is unlawful. This provision implies more unfair avenues created for state officers to prolong detention days unnecessarily that is against the federal law. This restriction will make the state officers to benefit unfairly and render immigration officials work irrelevant. This attempt by state to act as immigration officials results to duplication of duties and will fuel intense conflicts between the local, state and federal jurisdictions. Besides, stopping aliens from seeking jobs in the US on the basis that their status is being cross-examined contravenes the intentions of the congress and overstretches the roles of federal. Upholding such provision would not have drawn clear lines between the federal and state jurisdictions with respect to immigration enforcement. The move by the Supreme Court judges to prohibit police from holding illegal immigrants in local behind bars and restricting immigrants from seeking job opportunities helped drew the roles distinction between the state and federal officials. Based on the reactions of both the Arizona Governor, Brewer, "but we are here today because the federal government has failed the American people. With respect to securing Mexican border, it clearly shows a looming conflict between federal government and state. Steve M. Gallardos comments validated this looming conflict as he noted that the Court had served to send a warning to the Governor indicating to them the unlawful extent on federal issues. The ruling solely mandated the federal officers to execute the arrest for illegal immigrants only when aliens were being pursued on the sole offence of being in Arizona as the legal offence. This part opens avenues for the massive battle between state officers and the federal police as state officers had shown interest in conducting arrest basing the argument on the failure by the Arizona government to secure Mexican border. The implication of the law to the administration means a blow as Obama had warned on deportation of aliens. The administration reminded Department of Homeland Security in Arizona to pay keen attention to serious criminal and repeat offenders while executing their deportation mandate. This move aimed at restricting officers from mishandling the immigrants. The ruling subsequently culminated to the revocation of the agreement mandating some Arizona officer to enforce federal laws on immigrants. Constitutional concerns stand to be raised based on the state officials intentions in prolonging the time those aliens detained will take behind the bars while determining their condition with the respective department. This stands to shutter federal framework as state officers will hold onto detainees behind the bars with no supervision and directives from the federal as aliens will be unlawfully detained which is against the humanitarianism. The provision solely surpasses the preemption if it is construed to mean that officers will not overstretch but only execute cross-examination upon release or lawful detention of unauthorized aliens. But this not being the case, section 2(B) has overarching and harmful consequences to federal law as well as its goals. The ruling was a win to Arizona as it intent could have negatively impacted on the federal law. As pointed out by Judge Kennedy, "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigrations. While that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law." According to this sentiment, it is evident that the motives of the Act is negative (Kubrin, Marjorie and Ramiro 123). This act is a trespass to the federal laws guiding Arizona by the states and hence enjoining it would be a blow to aliens. To those individuals who have benefited from the hard work the diligent immigrants offer to them in terms of exploitation, the deportation and detention of immigrants bother them. They stand to lose from such moves by the state to criminalize the unauthorized aliens who seek job (Rice, Stephen and Michael 178). In this case, they are supportive to the ruling based on the truck down of the other three restrictive provisions. Therefore, they find no basis on the intensity of brutalization and criminalization of removable immigrants who remain as well indulge in jobs within Arizona. To the politicians, the ruling will add no value but rather to a blow to them. This conclusion follows the decisions made by President Barrack Obama that decried and denied the attempts to deport aliens that migrated to US while children. Despite a win-win situation from the ruling, the bill is in its entirety is viewed as a political stunt with respect to AZ state Republican politicians. The fact is the diminishing number of unlawful immigrants recorded from 20000 with absent of SB1070, and therefore it is attached to no basis in lieu of inept federal law. About the over 600,000 immigrants apprehended since 2000, this culminated to a reduction in the number of aliens to 245,000 and hence SB1070 is attached to ado about nothing much in the short run. Politicians, particular the Republican will have to redesign other unfair self-serving issues to attract attentions in a bid to stay relevant in the election slotted for November. Rebuttal The law is needs to be thwarted based on the looming increased conflicts it avails between the state and federal laws. It is more of racial profiling being extended, and this will cause a lot of unnecessary discriminations. The grounds laid in understanding reasonable signs portraying an illegal immigrants are confusing. These include lack of government-issued identification, inability to render a residential address and foreign vehicle registration. In addition, unexplained nervousness, dress, inability to significantly communicate in English and inability to maintain eye contact will create a lot of difficulties. This difficulty results from a lack of experience by the sheriff deputies and officers despite the training ongoing. Conclusion In conclusion, the law upholding the disputed and contentious provision of SB1070 allowing law enforcement officers to check the status of suspected illegal immigrants based on the presence of reasonable suspicion is against humanitarianism. Despite the fact that it might be viewed by Governor and Arizona law enforcers, it is only a narrow opening for other states in practice (Magaña, Lisa, and Erik 111). The courts keenly affirmed primary role in handling immigrants to federal and warned on state officers advancing on immigration issues narrowly restricting states jurisdictions. Latinos and other aliens stand to lose greatly based on the racial profiling effects of the ruling as officers will advance their discriminatory self-interest activities. Work Cited Doty, R. L. (2009). The law into their own hands: Immigration and the politics of exceptionalism. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Aba-lsac Official Guide to Aba-Approved Law Schools. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2002. Print. Evans, James H, and Fred Horch. Law on the Net. Berkeley: Nolo Press, 1996. Print. Kubrin, Charis E, Marjorie S. Zatz, and Ramiro Martínez. Punishing Immigrants: Policy, Politics, and Injustice. New York: New York University Press, 2012. Print. Magaña, Lisa, and Erik Lee. Latino Politics and Arizonas Immigration Law Sb 1070. New York, NY: Springer, 2013. Internet resource. Rice, Stephen K, and Michael D. White. Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings. New York: New York University Press, 2010. Print. Ruiz, Vicki L, and Virginia S. Korrol. Latinas in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006. Internet resources. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration-and-emigration/arizona-immigration-law-sb-1070/index.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supreme-court-rejects-part-of-arizona-immigration-law.html?pagewanted=2 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/26/us/scotus-immigrationlaw-analysis.html Read More