Immigrants Living Illegal in the United States of America - Essay Example

SB 1070 The United s of America federal laws provides that aliens must register with its government as well as to have the legal registration documents at all times that can be used to identify them all the times. This was mainly meant o discourage the illegal migration of aliens and the consequent crimes that they are perceived to commit while they are illegally residing in the respective states. However the State legislators in Illinois’ Bill 123, which intends to obligate state officials to make an attempt to determine ones immigration status during any routine stop, detention, or arrest includes further provisions that makes the law even more stringent on the aliens. The Illinois’s legislative bill 123 together with the Arizona’s “Support our law enforcement and safe Neighborhood Act” is the strictest and wider anti-illegal immigration legislative act in the recent times. This bill intends to include more provisions to the federal laws of the United States of America. First, it would be a crime for individual aliens to be in the state of Illinois without the registration documents. It would also restrict the other state, local agencies and officials from the restricting enforcement of the federal immigration laws in the state of Illinois (Ferris, 289). It also provides for the crackdown for the individuals who are harboring, transporting or hiring aliens in the state illegally. This has been described as the strictest immigration law united states. The intent of these additional provisions was to reduce the number of illegal aliens who are estimated to approximately 460, 000 in Arizona only and even more in the state of Illinois and others states in the U.S. Thesis statement While the law provides for a more stringent regulation of the illegal immigrants to the state of Illinois, the clause that obligates state officials to make an attempt to determine ones immigration status during any routine stop, detention, or arrest is unconstitutional. This is because it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. constitution which has based more authority on the federal government with regard to the immigration matters of the state. This clause further emphasizes that only the federal government is authorized to enact and enforce immigration laws. The act provides for the state law enforcements agencies to question, arrest or detain individuals who are reasonably suspected to be in the country illegally. In this context the act gives the state law enforcement agencies to enforce the law and ensure that the immigrants abide by the state laws. According to Warner (68), this is unconstitutional because the responsibility of enforcing the immigration laws is a federal responsibility and not a state responsibility. If there is reasonable suspicion that they might be in the country illegally, it is the responsibility of the federal governments to enforce the laws. The Illinois’s bill 123 can be described as a bill that affects foreign matters and hence its effect when passed into law would affect the foreign policy of not only the Illinois but also the United States o America. The unconstitutional nature of this act is that the state does not have powers to pass laws that affect the foreign policy and relations. According to Warner (69), just like the states have no authority of passing their own foreign policies or enter into treaties with the other nations of the world, they do not have immigration policies and laws. The argument here is that the immigration laws is an attribute of the foreign affairs and hence the state law enforcing agencies and officials do not have any little power to pass such laws. The signing of the law into affect would therefore mean that the state of Illinois has a different foreign policy compared to the United States of America foreign policies in general and hence it is therefore unconstitutional. The role of a state in enforcing federal immigration laws is provided for in the federal laws of the united state of America. However these provisions are not wider as the Illinois’ legislator’s bill intends to provide. It does not also provide for the interception of the suspected illegal aliens, their arrest and detention until such a time when their immigration status shall be authenticated. As observed by Samson (56), the authority to exercise the immigration laws is limited to certain provisions. He also states that only the attorney general has the authority to approve specific individual state officers to enforce these laws. The approved officers are therefore authorized to perform on the specific functions which they are authorized to perform with regard to immigration law enforcement. The question that follows now is that if the state is only allowed to enforce certain specified laws through their specified officers and agencies, then how can they enact the laws that they are not permitted to enforce without the authority of the attorney general? The argument that the state has competent officers to enforce the federal immigration laws is misleading. This is because they do not have the authority to enact neither do they have the authority to enforce. This is unconstitutional as the state would be conflicting with the duty of the attorney general and the provisions b the federal laws. According to Ferris (298), federal laws do not provide special immigration laws to special states and hence it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to enforce special immigration laws in different nations. This violates the principle of equal protection for all, due process as well as violates the rights of individuals that have been protected by the federal immigration laws. The equal protection means that all the citizens in the federal states have to be protecting by the same laws and hence it would be unconstitutional to pass the bill and enact it as law. The proponents of the legislation have also argued that this legislation is parallel to the federal immigration laws and is mainly meant to increase stringency and vigilance with regard to the increasing illegal aliens. However, it is important to recognize that it conflicts the federal law on immigrations and hence not parallel. It therefore follows that its implementation would not be easier because of the conflicting provisions by the federal government and the state government. It would be difficult for the government to provide security for all the citizens as there would be increased detentions. The intended law also goes against the will of the people. If the demonstrations and protests witnessed in Arizona as a result of the signing of the act into constitution is anything to go by, the state of Illinois is nothing better either. There is fear that it would result into the increase in the violations of human’s rights as well as illegal detentions. The protests clearly show that the governor does not represent the will of the people of Arizona and hence it is likely to take the same root in Illinois. There are fears that this would increase racial profiling and the use of race as the basis for investigating the illegal aliens. This may result into racial discrimination and racisms which may affect the marginalized communities in the state of Illinois. This is violation of the principle of equal protection and equality for all irrespective of your races. There is need therefore for alternative methods to investigating and managing the problems of increasing aliens in certain states including Arizona and Illinois. The community policing and the relationship between the local, state and the federal law enforcement agencies is vital for the success in reducing the number of illegal aliens. It is important to recognize that the enforcement of the act would discourage the community from reporting the illegal aliens and there would be increased number and not reduced. The legislators should therefore reject the proposal by the Illinois legislators and hence save the state of Illinois from increased discrimination and the violations of human rights. Since the states of Arizona as well as that of Illinois commands some of the greatest number of immigrants living illegal in the United States of America. It has been suggested that free passage of the known illegal aliens would be one of the best solutions to the problem (Congress, 539). The illegal aliens should not be intimidated but should be allowed to pass freely to their native lands without conviction. This is because the act that is intended to put more stringent measures on the illegal aliens would result violations of the rights of the innocent Citizens of those particular states. On the other hand, when nothing is done, there would be increased number of illegal aliens in the soils of the nation. This has resulted into the increased rates of crimes I which the identities of those who commit such crimes have not been achieve either. It is therefore important to note that illegal aliens is a problem in the United states of America and hence needs an alternative approach rather than the acts that intends to violate the rights of the people. Works Cited Congress. “Congressional record, V. 152, pt. 14, September 2010.” Washington, DC: Congressional offices, 2011. Ferris, Elizabeth G. “The politics of protection: The limits of Humanitarian Action.” Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2011. Samson, Carl. “Frommers Arizona & the Grand Canyon 2011.” California: California University press, 2011. Warner, Judith. “U.S. Border Security: A reference handbook.” California: ABC-CLIO, 2010. Read More