A Safe Haven For Undocumented Immigrants

In this paper I argue that S.B. 1070 should be not be upheld for two reasons. First, in ways that will be explicated below, S.B. 1070 directly conflicts with federal immigration law; thus it is preempted according to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Second, the law is unconstitutional because it allows for discrimination by police officers on the basis of race or national origin. This Note contends that the Ninth Circuit correctly affirmed the decision of the lower court to find S.B. 1070 preempted by federal immigration law; however the Ninth Circuit should have also found that S.B. 1070 is unconstitutional on discriminatory grounds. Part II discusses the evolution of the relevant case law. Part III of the Note illustrates the relevant portions of S.B. 1070 and the District Court’s reasoning in United States v. Arizona. Part IV explains why the Ninth Circuit correctly affirmed the decision that S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal immigration law and expounds how the law is also discriminatory on the basis of national origin against Hispanics. Finally, Part V comments on the possible consequences of S.B. 1070 and the effect of a Supreme Court decision to either affirm or reverse the injunction.

The state of Arizona has issued a new state law which enables police officers to act as immigration officers. With this underestimated powers given to the police, it will cause a lot of problems, and sensitivities to all the legal and illegal immigrants (Cnn.com). Undocumented students residing Arizona will be in a constant fear of being deported since any minor issue such as calling the police for help in any case given can put their lives in the danger of deportation. It’s only a matter of time if the government doesn’t stop this act, Arizona will impose unfair laws for education toward undocumented students. This will only cause chaos, and taking away the validity of the American Dream.

Last week the City of Ithaca passed an ordinance to make the city a Sanctuary City. Local Congressman Tom Reed says sanctuary cities are not the right approach. "We should be focusing on the root cause of the problem, it's a border that's not functioning, that needs to be enforced to keep our American citizens safe so she has a safe environment upon which to thrive and achieve the American dream. So I think if we can adopt that common ground, if we can adopt that vision we can unite and solve the problem that is the root cause of this and thats

It is clear that illegal immigration has gotten out of control and constringent measures need to be taken to protect the United States borders. The local Government of Arizona recently decided to take control of the situation, by passing the “Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” {House Bill 2162}. This bill gives law enforcement officers and agencies the authority, to lawfully stop, detain and arrest anyone who appears to look like an illegal alien. The bill out-right condones racial profiling and it violates civil rights, as well!

Other police departments have practices prohibiting or discouraging officers from verifying immigration status, and many departments have no official stance. Some departments proactively reach out to immigrants in their community without regard to immigration status in order to build trust.” Leitner and Strunk identify Arizona and Alabama as good examples of states that have passed laws laws that target immigrants by, “…requir[ing] local police to determine the immigration status of persons arrested or detained, if there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the country without authorization.” Conversely, Srikantiah states that California has, “…enact[ed] laws granting undocumented immigrants

According to Fox News, in the 2017 Texas Legislature session, Texas Governor Greg Abbott stated he expected the Texas Legislature to pass Senate Bill 4, requiring local governments to enforce migrant detainees at local jails and withhold state grants if they do not comply. Thus, sanctuary cities within the State are no longer permitted without financial repercussion. Senator Charles Perry, the bill’s sponsor, stated “President-elect Donald Trump’s election made it clear that immigration must be a priority. Thus, local policies cannot be allowed to undercut state and federal policies (Ward 2017).” Although there is a concern that illegal immigrants commit crimes and take

With important issues occurring every hour these days, more questions are being asked with them. One of those issues is Sanctuary Cities. A Sanctuary city is a city in which State and Local government do not follow immigration policy and do not actively seek and deport undocumented immigrants. Some could find that this Local policy hurts all Americans. Some could find this a moral obligation as a citizen of the United States. But by any means this topics has major implications to President Trumps policies and Federalism. And with these cities becoming more mainstream, question are becoming more relevant to other parts of government. There are direct effects on issues like cities health program, fight against opioids, and other local

It also subjects law enforcement to a class A misdemeanor for failing to “hold non-citizen inmates subject to removal” (Aguilar). This creates various responses from police officers whom come from an undocumented family and do not personally agree with this. Sheriff Sally Hernandez from Travis county in Texas decided to take a stand against this new ban against sanctuary cities. Sheriff Sally decided that her county will not comply with this infringement on families and their safety (Aguilar). This caused the state to “deprive the local government of all of its state funding,” showing that this is going to be a long battle between the state and local government of Texas and Travis County. The state is disciplining the local government of Travis County by withholding all state funding which is quite detrimental to the county itself (Aguilar). State government definitely uses their money as a source of power over local government. This seems very over-the-top but it is what the state finds necessary to uphold order and

First of all, the U.S Constitution protects these sanctuary cities. Since federal government and state government. If the city in the state decides to become a sanctuary city, there should be nothing in the way of them. The federal government shouldn’t intervene into something that they shouldn’t be in. Good relationships with local law enforcement and the people of the city documented or not, is essential in order for prosperous growth. When the people of the city and the law enforcement can help each other and communicate without fear of being deported or stripped from their family, then that city should be an example for all others. Protecting these undocumented immigrants from unjust Federal Immigration Laws should be one of the main goals. The government is taking the hard working people that have been here their entire lives. Trump’s idea of sanctuary cities is a bit blurry due to the fact that he only looks at crimes. Trump does not look at all the important things that undocumented people and families do like work the jobs that no one else wants to do. They do it efficiently as well, it’s not like if they do a bad job. Undocumented immigrants are actually working the fields putting all the food that other people use on their plates. As a matter of fact, now that Mr. Trump wants to build “a giant beautiful wall”, most of the people that will be actually building will

I think these cities are hazardous to protect legal citizens. For example, in San Francisco (a sanctuary city), a

The Los Angeles freelance writer Richards discussed the changing ideology and opinions that have shaped California’s immigration policies. Even though Los Angeles is a sanctuary city that hosts several hundred thousand of immigrants, the city was once a tough place for immigrants to settle and enter. For example, in 1986, the city had instituted measures that could deport immigrants more so the ones who had a higher risk of recidivism (Richards). However, as the immigrants’ population surged and their political relevance increased, a federal court eventually awarded them the right to be accorded public services that other city members were entitled to, retracting the 1994 discriminatory policy that denied immigrants such privileges (Richards).

Despite the name, The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act ironically increases minorities’ fear of discrimination. As a result, many people question the constitutionality of the law. States laws like SB 1070 infringe on basic constitutional rights such as potential violation of the fourteenth amendment. In fact, these laws violate the Supremacy Clause, which states that federal law, treaties, and the Constitution are supreme law of the land, thus “allow[ing] discrimination against a discrete and insular minority or infringe on a fundamental right in violation of the Constitution” (Gilbert 201). Therefore, this law violates the fourteenth amendment because it deprives citizens of equal protection under the law. Additionally,

The name “sanctuary cities” comes from the 1980s protests of federal immigration policies that refused shelter to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. It all began when the Salvadoran government had inflicted martial law on all its citizens, which in effect pronounced the beginning of mass killings in the country. The movement was formed to offer protection to these undocumented refugees that were fleeing the Central American wars that plagued their homes. An estimated 18,000 to 20,000 people were killed or “disappeared” in the 1980’s alone. Thousands of Salvadorans fled the violence, coming north through Mexico to the United States. In July of 1980, two dozen or more Salvadorans who were crossing the Sonoran Desert were deserted by their

If these laws are not enforced, public safety, especially in sanctuary cities, may become dangerous. Today, this law is in the House in an effort to prevent another situation similar to this tragedy, and passed with an overwhelming majority of 257-167 (Clark, 2017).

For now some localities were still talking tough, with Seattle’s mayor vowing in the wake of the election to maintain that city’s sanctuary policy, which prohibits reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities.