The Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act

“Today's foreign immigrants account for approximately one-third of America's annual population growth, not only because of their large and increasing numbers, but also because of America's low birth rate (16 per 1000) and low fertility rate (1.8)” (Carlson). The current population of the U.S. is 212 million people, if one-third of them will leave, then a country’s economy will crash. The impact of the anti-immigrant laws have is completely negative, because if immigrants will go back home or will move to another country, the state loses workers and consumers who earn and spend money and pay taxes in the state. These taxes are the part of the country’s budget, which is distributed of the benefits for all residents of the country. The absence of immigrants will impact and loss in many different occupations and industries, from construction and landscape to finance and IT. Though some U.S.-born workers could fill some of those jobs, large gaps in several sectors would remain and cause a decline in the economy. The generations of immigrants have helped lay the railroads and build American cities, pioneer new industries and fuel our Information Age, from Google to the iPhone and society cannot just lose these people or not let potential ones of them enter into the country. The consequences of an anti-immigration law will cause to the recession of the

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.

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.

Illegal immigration is an unintend¬ed result of federal immigration restric¬tions from the shortage of green cards (permanent residence) and temporary work visas available for migrants (Nowrasteh 2). Currently, 73% of the 11.5 million illegal immigrants nationally are located in ten states, including Arizona (Nowrasteh 2). Between 2000 and 2008, Arizona experienced a large increase of illegal immigrants from 330,000 to 560,000 (Nowrasteh 2). The costs of the housing bust and the Great Recession

Throughout the years there has been and increasing number of illegal immigrants in this country. Just recently Obama took executive action to shield illegal immigrants from deportation. A Texas Judge though blocked his executive action on immigration. Illegal immigration is a huge controversy here in the United States partly due to Americans thinking that illegal immigrates are taking jobs, causing lower wages, and the costs of education. In Immigration and the American Worker, George Borjas found that the presence of immigrant workers, whether they are legal or illegal, made the U.S economy about 11 percent larger each year. If overall the U.S economy is better off with illegal immigrant workers, then why is there a push for harsher immigration policies? The controversy is due to the fact that the impact of illegal immigration changes from state to state. I hypothesize that the problem is the distribution of illegal immigrants across the United States. I believe that the benefits outweigh the costs and that because of the distribution of illegal immigrants, the costs are only felt by a few. By granting amnesty to the undocumented workers we could increase the level of tax payers and better the lives of those who feel the costs of illegal immigrants the most. I will test this hypothesis out by looking at the impact illegal immigrant on the labor market, the cost of illegal immigration, cost of ant-immigrant policies, impact of legalization, and impact of amnesty.

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.

Are illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants beneficial to America’s economy? Most illegal immigrants have a positive impact on the United States (U.S.) economy. Illegal immigrants have a positive impact on the United States economy because they increase our tax revenue, they add to our social security, and they also increase our employment rates.” In 2000, statistics revealed 8.7 million illegal immigrants resided in the United States” (Knickerbocker pgs.11-12). “A study of illegal immigrants living in Texas showed a 420 million dollar increase in the states economy” (Strayhorn). Companies risk hiring illegal immigrants

According to the author of this law, Mr. Russell Pearce, the state senator of Arizona’s 18th legislative district and the author of the new Arizona law SB 1070, argues that the United States Federal Government has not been doing their job correctly. The new law gives police officers the power to enforce immigration law. Pearce stated that police officers will not abuse of their powers given by the SB 1070 law because the SB 1070 clearly states the law provisions and how to enforce it. Therefore, he took the lead and implemented this law on his state to eliminate undocumented people at least in Arizona. Through this law police officers will have the power of prosecute anyone who is suspicious of being an illegal alien.

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.

As for the Sb 1070 implemented by our own Governor Janet Brewer, that was originally enacted to improve our economy, safeguard our neighborhood, and secure our borders was intended to put ease to our state; it caused some turmoil. Though, the success was strong in the sense of securing our border, and making those neighborhoods a little safer to live in, causing some economic downfalls to hit our state; by these entrepreneurs closing shop and move back to Mexico in fear of deportation. Furthermore, it took way for our state revenue, for we no longer had state and federal funds flowing into our coffers for these immigrants being here; instead we were in jeopardy of losing this state and federal funding.

It has been estimated that in 2007 there were close to 12 million unauthorized workers in the Untied States. ("No. 09-115") To combat what they saw as a "problem," the Arizona state legislature passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act

The most avidly debated effects of immigration involve the United States’ economy and labor force. It is estimated that there are 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States today, and their impact on the economy can be perceived as positive as well as negative. The overall effect is unclear, and this essay will present both sides of the debate.

The E-Verify is an updated and technologically advanced version of the I-9. “E-Verify is the federal government’s online work authorization verification system. […] E-Verify allows registered employer to enter the biographic information […] of new hires into an online computer” (Meissner 77-78). Many people believe that this technology will improve the employer sanctions and remove the unauthorized from the workforce. Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization services, explains how E-Verify will help with employer sanctions.

Every day police officers in every jurisdiction across America deal with some of the worst segments of our society, arrest these people, and then hopefully go home safe after a long day at work. They often times go home to a family who does not have the skillset or tools to protect themselves in the same manner or fashion as a police officer does. Families are left exposed to the potential for danger if one of these suspects later comes after their police officer spouse or parent. There are some jurisdictions that require their police officers to carry their service weapon off duty, and some that don’t require but do allow this if the officer chooses to do so. This is all well and good as long as the officer stays within their legal jurisdiction, but what happens if they want to take their family on a road trip up state, or out of state? The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, or LEOSA, is public policy on the federal level that was created to protect law enforcement officers on all levels (local, county, state, and federal) and is reciprocal throughout the fifty states as law. It is without a doubt a major protection for law enforcement officers while off duty and for those who are retired.

E-verify is a internet-based system that compares information for employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to confirm employment eligibility.