United States V. Arizona

1070 which made it illegal for immigrants not to carry their documents and authorized police to detain people they ‘reasonably’ suspect are unauthorized.” (Renwick). Unfortunately, much of this policy was found to violate or infringe upon the immigrant’s rights. “Last year, the Supreme Court struck down most of Arizona’s immigration legislation, siding with the Obama administration and immigrant right’s activists who argued that Arizona’s law intruded on the federal government’s well-established authority over immigration” (Lane). Although this state law was argued in the Supreme Court, the controversial “papers, please” clause was allowed to remain in effect.

The documentary 9500 Liberty by Annabel Park and Eric Byler told of the inequality that immigrants faced in Prince William County, a small community in Virginia. On October 16, 2007, eight members of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on emergency funding to implement immigration resolution. This new law made it possible for police officers in Prince William County to question anyone they suspected to be in the country illegally based on factors such as their skin color and language. This paper will discuss the different perspectives appearing in the film 9500 Liberty in an effort to evaluate and critic arguments made by both parties in

The Arizona state legislature passed into law S.B 1070, which was intended to address issues related to illegal aliens in the state. The law made it a crime for illegal aliens to be in Arizona, without legal documents, it also authorized local and state law enforcement to enforce federal laws and prohibited the hiring, sheltering and transportation of illegal aliens. The legislation initiated constitutional concerns over violation of civil rights and was considered as encouraging racial profiling. There were also demonstrations against the legalization. The department of justice sough to stop

“Texas v. United States was a federal court challenge to President Obama’s 2014 executive action on immigration.  On November 20, 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued directives that both identified longstanding immigration enforcement priorities and directed federal officials to exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to defer removal of certain parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents in order to remain consistent with those priorities in light of limited enforcement resources.  Twenty-two states, four governors, and the Nevada Attorney General challenged the directives,

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.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor for Lopez on April 26th of 1995. In a disputable 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld

This law was sending a very strong message to all of the illegal aliens living in Arizona. The SB-1070 was written deliberately with aggressive measures intended to promote to the estimated 460,000 illegal aliens to go home (About, 2011). The issue with some parts of the bill was that it was racially profiling, and it promoted discrimination against mainly immigrants. The federal judge also stopped the section of the law that made it a crime for any for any foreign resident living in the state of Arizona to carry immigration paperwork at all times. In addition, the judge also stopped the part where it would make it a crime for any illegal or foreign resident living in the state of Arizona to solicit, perform, or apply for work. This gave illegal aliens living in state of Arizona a big relief to know that those main parts of the bill were stopped, giving them the advantage to continue to move forward with their lives instead of worrying about getting deported.

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 the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.

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.

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!

Before I can appropriately discuss the opinion given by the US Supreme Court Justices; I feel that at first I must explain the background of what happened and the question that was brought before the justices of the US Supreme Court and the facts of the case. During this paper I will try to give some background information as well as the various opinions related to this issue. I will attempt to analyze and discuss the overall final outcome as issued by the courts in 1995.

In the case of Patel v. Quality Inn South, it was first proclaimed by a district court that undocumented aliens were not protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (“PATEL v. QUALITY, ” n.d.). The Eleventh Circuit Court contacted the U.S. Department of Labor in order to determine whether or not undocumented aliens could protest and file for violations under the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The U.S. Department of Labor responded and took “the position that undocumented aliens were covered by the provisions of the FLSA and thus were entitled to its protections” (“PATEL v. QUALITY,” n.d.). The Circuit Court then reversed the decision of the district court and held that

S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4. Additionally, previous Supreme Court cases have served as reinforcement to the authority of the federal government, such as granting “undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens” Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10 (1982). another Supreme Court Case, Arizona v. United States, has further clarified the role of the federal government such as relegating issues such as the identification and deportation of undocumented immigrants is beyond the power of the states.

In the case at bar, there are four questions that must be answered: (1) Does this case deal with a non-justiciable issue? (2) Does the Commerce Clause give congress authority over immigration policy? (3) Does Congress ' power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization give it authority over immigration? And (4) Does the “Take Care” Clause allow the president to change US immigration despite the previously mentioned congressional powers? At the end of this argument, I hope your honors will decide that the case at bar deals with a justiciable issue and that the president’s actions are deemed a violation of the constitution of the United States.