Strangers To The Constitution Book Review

The debate over illegal immigration has been a constant and ongoing struggle in the United States. Millions of illegal immigrants are living among us in the country, we have more entering daily. Recently, President Barack Obama touched on the topic with his immigration executive order. Unfortunately, with the republican takeover of the white house, many of his actions are not being supported. This is viable evidence that there are people who want to help fix the immigration system in a way that will benefit illegal immigrants and give them a fighting chance to prosper here in the United States. With that being said, there are also powers who do not want to see that happen because they believe that it is not in the best interest of the United States to open their borders to illegals. This puts to question what the next steps for the United States will decide and how that will affect Americans across the country. My goal of this essay is to enlighten the moral concerns in the debates pertaining to immigration.

The United States of America is a country that was founded on the idea that all citizens would have equal rights and freedoms. For the protection of the people, and to maintain order, law has been developed over time. Rights advocates are constantly pushing the boundaries of what the law should, or should not be. Individual-rights and public-order advocates are in a battle of balance, leaving the justice system to decide what the best solution is for all.

The constitution guarded against tyranny by giving us federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and large vs. small states. The constitution was written in Philadelphia in the year of 1787. This established America’s national government and fundamental laws

In the book “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin she explains the constitution from start to finish from how it all began, to the debates inside the convention and finally the end product. Berkin takes the reader and puts him directly in the middle of the convention of 1786; throughout the book you can feel the excitement, the frustration, the tensions between delegates and the overall commitment to making a new government work for all.

There is an assessed 11 million illegal aliens that are living United States, and this population is projected to upturn by 500,000 yearly. Once a year, about 1 million people that are considered to be aliens are detained when they make the attempt to come in the United States unlawfully. Even though most of these foreigners arrive the United States for financial chances and family reunification, or they are avoiding civil trouble and political unrest, some are offenders, and some could possibly be terrorists. Every one of them is disrupting the United States' immigration laws. With that said, this paper will involve the case study of immigration enforcement and the circumstances around the issue.

Sergio Hernandez Guereca was shot by Jesus Mesa Jr. in 2010 on the Mexico-United States border. Sergio was on the Mexican side while Mesa was on the American side. Sergio’s parents are now trying to sue Mr. Mesa in an American court. The Supreme Court is deciding whether the Guerecas can sue and if constitutional protections extend across the border. What implications would be made if the Guerecas are allowed to sue? What do those implications mean? Everything will be explained and clarified so you can understand this article better.

It has been argued since the start of immigration whether or not aliens (undocumented or documented) should have the same equal rights as Americans when it comes to employment, education, and benefits in the United States. Despite what individuals believe or disbelieve, under certain acts, codes, laws, and the U.S. Constitution, all aliens have rights, regardless of their immigration status. In this paper I will discuss an overview of the court case, Patel v, Quality Inn South, which deals with an undocumented alien who was able to recover funds from his former employer. I will explain the acts that impacted the case, whether I agree or disagree with the outcome of the case, and my personal opinions of the case itself.

This paper must challenge an area of study for this semester (Not using Lee textbook as references nor private or to refer to non-for profit agencies) to a government agency whom lost a United Supreme Court case since January 2010 issue; In such issues as the supremacy cooperative agreement Section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) in adjunction with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 287 and INA 287(g) (that was the regulations for Immigration Enforcement Authority prior to 2012) that came under “considerable legal debate concerning the power of state and local police to enforce federal immigration law in the absence of express authorization in federal statute” (Garcia). For which, the states’ oppositions lost their cases in court until the Arizona v. United States case in 2012. For which was not a complete lost because it gave birth to the Memorandum of Understanding between the states and the federal government. By which the federal program ICE were the eyes and ears of implementing the trainings needed for the federal laws and requirements to be enforced by the states and local law enforcements agencies. Though it still fail in its ineffectiveness’, the objectives are still living today, improving its constructive and characteristic methodologies as the years’ goes bye.

The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Throughout the history of the United States, our government has proposed solutions for problems not specifically addressed in the constitution. Some of these problems developed over time, some resulted from changes in the social climate of the country, others from the constant influx of immigrants from other nations. Many of the solutions that government proposed did not solve the problem; sometimes, the problem got worse. In these cases, the government had to implement a long-term solution to maintain law and order.

Charles Beard lived in a time when a vast majority of politicians and economists considered the views of the founding fathers to be infallible. In fact, many people nowadays still believe that to be the case. Beard, however, held a different opinion in regards to their writing of the Constitution. Whereas most people believe that it was written entirely due to the pressing issues concerning the economic state and unity of the country, Beard believed that it was at least in part due to those same politician’s selfish economic interests since all of them were wealthy men. He argued in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitutionthat the way the Constitution’s system of power and representation “were devices for keeping power in the hands of the rich” [1]. He makes an interesting case in his highly controversial book, but one

America has, is, and will always be a nation of immigrants: the great melting pot. In the years that have passed since Emma Lazarus' poem was inscribed on the Statue of Liberty "the golden door" Americans have seen times when the door was open wide and times when it was close shut to most immigrants (Sure 4). Many people look at the present immigration problems as a purely modern dilemma. The truth is America has always struggled with the issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. Changing times, however, makes it imperative that our government reexamines and adjusts today's immigration laws to today's standards. Those standards, however, are not easily defined. Too often the issue of

While there could be distinct differences between those who supported ratifying the Constitution and those who did not, according to Maier, for a variety of reasons, the lines were often blurred and seemed to cross between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. For example, many Federalists were not always associated with the political party that eventually came into existence and carried that same name as Federalists. In addition, Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification often became supporters of the Constitution, at least, once amendments were promised. This was not simply Federalists versus Anti-Federalists, a larger, more powerful federal government versus smaller, less powerful state governments. While many at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wanted a stronger confederation between the states, it was the few who wanted a stronger federal government and who supported the Constitution that took the name – Federalists. All those in opposition were deemed Anti-Federalists, yet with time, the lines between the two were blurred. Supporters of the Constitution understood the Constitution was not perfect; the opposition could agree with much of the new

The article called “Our Imbecilic Constitution” by Sandford Levinson, is an interesting piece that includes the author’s opinions and criticism about the U.S Constitution and why it should be amended to meet the needs of this generation. One of the author's main points focused on the effects of the presumed outdated U.S constitution within our current government. (Explain) Secondly, the author offers a contrast between the U.S. Constitution and the states Constitution. One example from the article includes the state of California. The state of California Constitution was considered dysfunctional and stupid to the U.S Constitution in its unaltered conditions. The author says that even though this so-called strong system of separation of power and “check and balance”

According to Charles Beard, he believes that The Constitution wasn’t created by the “Whole People” or by “The States.” Charles Beard believes that The Constitution was created by a group of wealthy consolidated people who “knew no state boundaries.”