Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations - Essay Example

Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations Immigration to the United s has been one of the mainstays of the nation and this is the reason why the country is considered to be a nation of immigrants. It is a fact that most of the people in the United States are either children of or descendants of immigrants from all over the world and this is why it is such a diverse country with people from different backgrounds and cultures. The largest constituent ethnic groups are those of European descent who, while forming almost a cohesive unit within the United States are descended from people from a large number of European states and nations. The immigration of Europeans to what later came to be known as the United States began during the seventeenth century and it is still an ongoing process to this day. The white community, being the largest in the country has remained dominant from the very beginning with a large number of them holding the most prominent positions in the society, whether social, economic, or political. This has resulted in their forming a cohesive unit which has either consciously or unconsciously worked towards the sidelining of other ethnic groups, being the minority, and ensuring that their political and economic interests are protected to the disadvantage of the latter. Because of this, it has become the norm for some of the people of European descent to advocate for limits to immigration, especially for members of other ethnic groups, because of the fear that they might end up losing their dominant position in society if immigration goes on unchecked. In addition, there are also economic considerations, especially when one considers the fact that most immigrants tend to work for lower wages and this ensures that locals are not able to compete with them in the job market since locals often demand higher wages and other perks such as insurance. The immigration policy of the United States is one of the most controversial issues affecting the cooperation between the federal and state governments. This is mainly because of the fact that while many state governments advocate for the restriction of immigration and immigrants into the United States, the federal government has taken a more moderate stance on the issue; in most cases working towards ensuring that those illegal immigrants that have come into the country and stayed for a significant period have their status legalized. The regulation of immigration into the country is conducted by the federal government which, under the rules that were established in 1952, giving the federal government the authority to regulate illegal immigration into the country and sanctioning individuals who employed illegal immigrants. It is for this reason that Congress has control over all issues related to immigration and the executive has the authority to ensure that all immigration laws passed by Congress are enforced.1 The latter has been a most controversial issue between the state and federal governments because of the fact that the latter has been given more authority to deal with matters concerning immigration than the state governments. This battle for supremacy over the immigration policy has been taken all the way to the Supreme Court which has often ruled in favor of the federal government. Moreover, those states which have attempted to pass legislation aimed at singling out immigrants have more often than not been overruled by the Supreme Court; this being in addition to its quoting the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which has been interpreted to mean that federal laws override state laws. Despite this, the supremacy clause is not active on those matters concerning immigration that are constitutionally left to the states. Because of this, many states have passed laws which have placed limits on the access that immigrants can have to public facilities within these states.2 Moreover, some states have made it mandatory for the police to check for the legal status of residence of the people that they arrest among other regulations and directives that have come to have a direct impact on immigrants. Most of the laws that are meant to regulate immigration that have been passed by various states have been justified by state legislatures which state that the federal laws that have been put in place lack the clout needed to enforce them at the state level. Moreover, they cite the need to ensure that the limited state resources are protected from uncontrolled immigration because to do otherwise would mean putting a strain on the budgets of the states affected. Most of the state laws concerning immigration that have been passed have also cited the need to curb insecurity as a reason for the strict enforcement of immigration control within their borders since there has developed the belief that most of the crime that is committed is by those illegal immigrants who are unemployed. While this may be the case, questions are still being asked about whether the state laws concerning immigration are constitutional or not. This is mainly because of the fact that while many lawmakers in these states have shown a genuine desire to limit illegal immigration, there are no clear guidelines to show where the authority of the federal government ends and that of the state governments begins. Among the most controversial state laws which have recently come to be challenged by the federal government is that passed by the Arizona legislature and known as the Arizona Senate Bill 1070. When this law was passed in 2010, even the Department of Justice stated that the Arizona legislature had crossed a constitutional line and because of this, a federal judge stopped four of its most contentious elements.3 Among this was a requirement that law enforcement in this state check anyone suspected of being in the state illegally. Oklahoma and Utah also passed laws with similar objectives and these have continued to elicit mixed reactions within the public with some supporting them while others have shown their disapproval.4 There are some pending laws in the making in some states which have the potential of violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution which grants automatic citizenship for all of those children that are born within the United States. Proponents of these laws, especially in Arizona and Indiana have declared that children born to illegal immigrants should be excluded from this provision. Because of their highly notorious and controversial nature, these bills have been placed in the Supreme Court for eventual review to consider their constitutionality. In spite of the arguments that have been made by state lawmakers when passing immigration laws, the fact remains that most of the laws that states have passed on this issue have been challenged by the federal government and civil liberty groups. The laws passed in Arizona in relation to giving police the authority to stop and check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants has been challenged by civil society who has termed this piece of legislation racist. This has also led to its being considered suspicious mainly because of the fear that it might bring about racial profiling and these have prompted several lawsuits against Arizona and other states which have passed similar legislation. The state laws hostile to immigrants have made it possible for state law enforcement to subject those individuals believed to be foreign to constant harassment as well as arrests and detentions which are not only prolonged but also unlawful. Because of this, as well as the issues concerning jurisdiction, the federal government has been at the forefront of challenging these laws with the claim that state immigration laws would not be able to fix the nation’s immigration system. One would suggest that the activities of state legislatures in the passing of immigration laws have to be viewed with suspicion and this is mainly because of the fact that they have ceased to do the tasks for which they were created in the first place. It is because of this that the Supreme Court has come to favor the action of the federal government to attempt to strike down these legislations before they are implemented because if the latter were allowed to happen, it would mean that the Constitution will have been breached. In addition, state immigration laws have become a tool for the erosion of federal authority over immigration in favor of the state and local interests. Because of such legislation states are increasingly finding it difficult to pass and implement laws which main purpose is to protect those under their jurisdiction. Instead, the laws they pass come to be dominated or overridden by local interests who feel threatened by immigration. Thus, despite the notorious immigration laws which have been passed by some states, one would suggest that the federal government has worked towards upholding the integrity of the Constitution and this has ensured that the rights of immigrants, even those that are undocumented, are protected. Because immigrants have been proven to be among those who contribute to the economy of the United States, it would be most unwise for states to pass laws which are hostile to them because to do so would mean the stagnation of the economy. Bibliography Booth, Daniel. “Federalism On Ice: State And Local Enforcement Of Federal Immigration Law.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy29. No. 32006: 1063-1083. Boushey, Graeme & Luedtke, Adam. “Immigrants across the U.S. Federal Laboratory: Explaining State-Level Innovation in Immigration Policy.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11, no.4 2011: 390-414. Brezenski, Thomas F. “Lessons Learned? A Comparison of Modern State Immigration Laws and Past Federal Health Policy in the Stigmatization of Minority Groups in the United States.” Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 3, no.3 2011: 25 - 37 Stodder, Seth & Rippeon, Nicolle. “State and Local Governments and Immigration Laws.” The Urban Lawyer 41, no. 3 (2009): 387 – 426. Read More