The Chamber Of Commerce V. Whiting

There are few topics in America today that are more hotly debated than immigration. Because of our nation’s economy and current leadership, immigration seems to be a much more sensitive topic in today’s society than ever before. From the time our country was founded, people have immigrated to America for a better life. In an effort to escape religious persecution, war, or just to have better opportunities for their family, immigrants have tried to make their homes within the borders of the United States. Illegal immigration has reached epic proportion and everyone can agree that a solution is long overdue. Although many states

Back in 2007 there were several concerns over immigration as a whole and exploding proportions of illegal immigrants crossing the border in the Arizona area. Arizona attempted to resolve the influx of people across the border by imposing heavy fines on employers hiring illegal immigrants. At that time in Arizona there was a democratic governor Janet Napolitano that continually vetoed the Arizona’s legislature attempt to reduce illegal immigration. In 2009 the state replaced the Democratic governor with a Republican governor Jan Brewer who was supportive of reforms for immigration in Arizona. In 2010 the immigration problem was so sever that Arizona passed legislation allowing the state to enforce federal law for identification of legal immigration into the United States. This sparked a nation wide discussion on illegal immigration and immigration reform.

Immigration issues are not issues only encountered here in the United States, but are also issues faced throughout the world. There have been numerous of debates on the issues of immigration in the United States. The most controversial was the passing of a new bill in Arizona. Governor Jan Brewer passed into Arizona legislature the SB1070, which became very controversial because of the demands that this law was enforcing. This controversial bill gives any Arizona law enforcement personnel full authority to stop any people who they think have reasonable suspicion of living in the United States illegally. It also gives

Currently, one of most debated policy issues in America is immigration. Starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the American government created several immigration laws that sought to put an end to illegal immigration by mandating workplace regulations, employer sanctions, internal enforcement mechanisms, and border security (Nowrasteh 2). According to immigration policy analyst Alexander Nowrasteh at the Center of Global Liberty and Prosperity of the Cato Institute, by the 1990s, legal immigration was essentially impossible to the United States unless the immigrant was highly skilled, had a close American citizen or legal permanent resident relative or friend who could sponsor him or her, or was a refugee. The Arizona immigration laws should be repealed due to damage done to the state’s economy, the benefits of immigrants to the American economic structure, and the societal harm imposed upon citizens.

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.

It is the government’s ordained and foremost right to provide its citizens with reliable protection and security, especially in the face of an emergency. However, the government’s failure to provide equitable care, causing damage, injury, or death, results in legal negligence, or a person not acting to their given standard resulting in damage. In the case of Riss v. The City of New York, Linda Riss experienced negligent conduct from the New York City police department when, after she was repeatedly threatened by a rejected suitor, they did nothing to protect her until after she was mutilated with acid. With protection and ongoing investigation, Riss would have been kept safe under the responsibility that the police failed to adhere to.

RULE OF LAW: In every other state or jurisdiction, a corporation is considered a foreign

Mark Twain stated: “It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either”. Perhaps this is what happened when the new law of Arizona was created. What does law means? Law is a set of rules established by a governing authority to institute and maintain orderly coexistence (Merriam Webster’s). A new law named SB 1070 has been written with hostile points that threats human rights. Thousands of illegal immigrants were force to return back to their countries. I admit that illegal immigration is a Federal Government crime, but SB 1070 is a discriminatory law against Hispanics. I believe Arizona’s Law SB 1070 should be forbidden because it only

There has been many laws and regulations passed, to try and prevent illegal migrants from working in the United States. In all states, businesses “Are required by federal law to check the legal status of all new hires. They must fill out federal form 1-9 to show that each worker holds federally acceptable residency documents, like a driver’s license or social security card” (Speizer 1). Although they must do all of those things, they are not required to check the authenticity of the documents. In Arizona that has all changed, a new law has been passed that makes it mandatory for all employers to participate in E-Verify “in which information from 1-9 documents can be checked through databases at the Social Security Administration or the Department of Homeland Security” (Speizer 2). This used to be something businesses could voluntarily partake in, but has now become mandatory in Arizona. Under this law they have created harsh punishments for employers who knowingly hire undocumented migrants. One of these harsh punishments includes the loss of the employer’s business license, if it is a reoccurring issue. They hope that this new law will decrease the amount of undocumented workers in the state and create more jobs for their own U.S. citizens.

No issue in any immigration policy kindles more dispute than the issue of illegal immigration. Unfortunately, some people confuse legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigrants are here legally. They have the proper, legal documents that allow them to live and work in the U.S. without complications. Illegal immigrants are defined as anyone who was born in a country other than the U.S. to parents who are not official U.S. citizens; they enter the U.S. without legal documents to prove their legal citizenship. Yet before the twentieth century, many individuals and families immigrated to the U.S. without restriction, and illegal immigration was not a problem at that time. Restrictive immigration quotas were presented, but even with limitations, citizens of the Western Hemisphere countries continued to immigrate outside of the quotas. Not until the 70th Congress did the Senate Committee pass an amendment to remove Mexico from the list of countries where families and individuals could immigrate without a quota. However, World War II began to require more and more troops, and the U.S. government looked toward Mexico because of the lack of manpower rather than issues regarding illegal immigration. The U.S. and Mexico endorsed an agreement that permitted Mexicans to work in America as a method to attend to the concerns of food processing in the U.S. during the war (Anderson, 91-93). In more recent years, President Obama, in an executive action, announced changes to DACA (Deferred

Immigration has become a very controversial topic that no one can stop talking about. From President Barack Obama’s Immigration Reform to potential 2016 presidential candidates, everyone is looking at different ways to amend our broken immigration system. Almost everyone agrees that we need tighter border control and there needs to be more regulations to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. Not everyone is sure what should be decided about immigrant parents, who are not American citizens, and their American born children. This topic has left people questioning the 14th Amendment and “birthright citizenship.” While some people have no tolerance for these children and want them out, others have thought of better solutions that keep the

The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction of duty, direct or proximate cause, and

Politicians complain about the birth rate of the illegal aliens and how illegal immigrant families take advantage of our government funding programs. Surely all mothers should want the best for their children. Why must we be so insensitive to the lives of other human beings? If someone needed water to live would you not give? Just because a dying man does not have insurance should we cast him aside to die? The main topic in question is morality. Some complain about the annual 11.8 billion dollars used to fund illegal immigrant children's education. Should not they have the chance at a formal education like the other children? I say it is money well spent.

The first thing that has ever gotten me to start thinking about the issue was when I had to read “Amnesty” by John Kavanaugh, who is a Roman Catholic priest and professor of philosophy for class. “Amnesty” is about illegal immigration and how Kavanaugh feels that the U.S. is unjust when it comes to dealing with them. He explains how most illegal immigrants come to the U.S. to get away from a bad situation and that they are trying to make a living for their families either back home or the family they formed here in the United States. Kavanaugh then goes on to explain how bishops from across the country “call for a more compassionate, fair, and realistic reform of our immigration system” (38) and they were met with resistance and resentment, he

In US litigation, there was a case against Warren M. Anderson Chairman the company CEO and also a criminal lawsuit against Union Carbide since 1989 in India. In 1989 the Indian Supreme Court ruled pointed out that $ 470 million paid to the victim through July 2004 only $ 140 orders have been settled, and the victims were seeking compensation for the incident and for the ongoing environmental contamination. After the accident injury compensation directly related to the appeal was dismissed, the complainant was given the go-ahead to continue their pursuit of property loss on the damage due to contamination from the leaks. In June 2010, a verdict was given which found the Union Carbide India Ltd and its seven executives guilty of