Biography Of Donald J. Trump

While Arizona is doing its best to enact tougher immigration laws, states like California are trying to create laws to protect illegal, undocumented, immigrants. “California’s new law limits cooperation with the federal Secure Communities program, under which the fingerprints of arrestees that local police routinely send to the FBI also get routed to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement” (Lane). The problem with this law, which the Supreme Court will eventually need to rule on, is that it also infringes on the current Federal laws. Because the federal government has the responsibility for setting immigration policy, states are facing an uphill battle in trying to set their own policy and enforcing immigration law at the state level.

In the case, Arizona versus United States, I am representing the respondent, United States, where we are seeking to stop the enforcement of S.B. 1070 in the federal district court before the law can be taken into effect. S.B. 1070, also known as Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, was passed in the state of Arizona in 2010 as an effort to address the large numbers of unlawful immigrants entering the state. The United States seeks to declare S.B. 1070 as preempted by the federal immigration law, where the four provisions of S.B. 1070, Section 3, Section 5, Section 6 and Section 2(B) violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

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 45th president of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, is a political man who has many ideas to improve the U.S. One of the many idea he had included building a wall between the borders of the United States and Mexico for the “purpose of controlling immigration into America”. According to Trump this wall is supposed to help our country with its national security. In reality though, many people believe that the wall is showing Trumps true colors. Many people are contemplating on the fact if Trump is a racist person who is building the wall because it provides a method of targeting and preventing those who are trying to cross the Mexican-American Border. In reality, Trump only cares about trying to make “America Great Again”, and

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!

The only person able to drop his charges was the Governor of California who is presently still in office;

In 2011, a United States Federal District Court Judge ordered Sheriff and Arpaio and his

Monday morning during a press conference, President Donald Trump defended the pardoning of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. In brief, Arpaio was initially found guilty on the charges of criminal contempt for violating court orders, despite the legal argument that he was not knowingly defying the judge’s orders. Specifically, the order to not detain any suspected undocumented immigrants. These rulings were given after a case in 2013 found him guilty of racial profiling.

On July 6, 1976, The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, allowed Border Patrol officers to stop vehicles based on motorists’ race and ethnicity (in this case, Mexican ancestry) at border checkpoints (“Racial Profiling Timeline” 2). HOW IS THIS RACIAL PROFILING? Another incident of racial profiling on Mexicans is in 1986 when the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Operation Pipeline began training state and local police to search for drug traffickers on major highways. Police officers are told that Latinos and West Indians warrant “extra security” (“Racial Profiling Timeline” 3). HOW IS THIS RACIAL PROFILING? Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agents are also prone to using racial profiling to track down undocumented labor violations. They have been reported to going on workplace raids at companies that employ large numbers of Latinos in hopes of catching illegal immigrants. Because the INS agents base their accusations exclusively on this information, they are guilty of racial

The summer of 2010 was proven to be an especially historic one for immigration policy in the United States. In late spring 2010, Arizona passed Senate Bill 10701 —an extraordinary law that reflects and has provoked intense reactions by political leaders, commentators, and the public. The bill raises critical issues of race, security, sovereignty, civil rights, state power, and foreign relations. Such issues encompass larger debates about modern immigration law and policy, and are worthy of sustained public commentary and scholarly discourse. The impact of S.B. 1070 on the criminal justice system of Arizona—the duties and powers of Arizona law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities, and the relationship of the state legislation to federal

Robert Weisberg a Faculty Co-Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center and professor of law explain in his article “Sheriff Arpaio Pardoning: Racial Profiling Contempt Of Court And The Law” the actions that took him to court and later to be acquitted by Donald Trump. Weisberg claims, “He’d been detaining large numbers of people on the ostensible ground that there was reasonable suspicion that they were immigration law violators. But the evidence showed that his officers were actually detaining people simply because they supposedly looked Latino/a, without the real justification. Weisberg mentions, “ But the evidence showed that his officers were actually detaining people simply because they supposedly looked Latino/a, without the reasonable suspicion of crime needed to justify a seizure.” This statement reinforces the idea that the justice system need a reform as soon as possible, since Arpaio was able to do all these actions against Latinos without been stopped The importance here lies in the fact that Latinos will always be a target unlike white people that will never have to worry for been stopped in the freeway because the way they look, because police will never distrust

Case Summary: Many states wanted to adopt policies that would limit the lives of illegal immigrants. Arizona being the primary state vying for laws to punish unauthorized immigrants. On April 23, 2010 the governor of Arizona signed a law designed to “ ... identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.” The United States seeking to stop the law before it was in effect, argued that the law was in conflict with the federal laws on illegal immigration. In the law signed by Arizona, given was four provisions, a condition in an agreement or law. The four provisions were (1) that being in Arizona without the proper legal documentation

Joe Arpaio was a sheriff of Maricopa County and a judge ordered him to stop going and investigating people based on whether they were undocumented immigrants or not. The judge did this because one, it’s a federal offence and has nothing to do with his job as a sheriff in Maricopa County. Second of all, in order for him to investigate people he needed to have probable cause and/or needed to think that there is some sort of crime being committed. Sheriff Arpaio basically told the judge that he wasn’t going to look for a crime and stated that he was just going to go into Latino neighborhoods and see if people were undocumented and then arrest them. The judge continued by telling Arpaio that he didn’t think he understood that he was not allowed

Forensic argument_ in our city (Phoenix, AZ) we used to have our sheriff Joe Arpaio who was well known as the thoughts sheriff of all the time. Even though, he was doing a great job by keeping our families safe and taking care of the animal cruelty. He was also known as the most racial sheriff of the town. He became notorious to undocumented families after activist start noticed he was violating the federal judge order to stop enforcing civil immigration laws. In 2011 he had a preliminary injunction where the order banned deputies from detaining anyone solely on suspicion they were undocumented. Again, he continued to detain illegal immigrants event though he had an order from the judge. Now, he still in trials and might face up to six months

c. Linton Joaquin of the National Immigration Law Center argues that, "States planning to follow in Arizona's misguided footsteps should take note: the United States cannot and should not allow immigrants and communities of color to be targets of hateful racial profiling legislation that puts their civil liberties on the line. We are pleased to see that the government has exercised its legal right to protect the rights of those within its borders and ensure that federal issues remain squarely in the federal domain."