On April 13, 2010, the state of Arizona passed an immigration law whose intent was to allow state law enforcement to handle some cases regarding immigration status. The law was based on federal law, however, the Constitution grants the Federal Government the ability to regulate immigration. There has been much controversy over the passage of this law.
There are problems in regard to immigration, itself. There are legalities over the capacity of a State to oversee its own borders. There additionally is the dilemma over giving a state the authority to do what the Constitution meant for the Federal Government to manage.
The issues specific to Arizona have to do with the proximity to Mexico, and the large land border that they share. The southern border of Arizona is largely desert and sparsely populated. There are no sizable population centers on either side of the border for hundreds of miles. The fact that the southern border of Arizona is merely a political boundary, not following any natural land formations or rivers, makes the boundary hard to distinguish from the ground.
As a result, the area is used for illegal entry into the United States from Mexico. The large land area provides miles of open space to cross without regular patrols to guard the border. In the 1990's, an estimated 80,000 people who had come across the border illegally were estimated to be living in Arizona. By 2010, that number had risen to nearly half-a-million.
The priority to the Arizona state government was the lack of measures taken by the federal law enforcement agencies. Whatever the reasons were for the absence of federal action, Arizona needed to employ their own state law enforcement personnel in handling immigration issues. To achieve this, they needed to have a bill enacted at the state level. The law was introduced in the state senate as SB 1070, and became identified as "Arizona SB 1070".
The legal challenges to the law included a law suit by the Attorney General of the United States that ended up being heard by the Supreme Court. In a 5-3 decision, parts of the law were upheld, and other parts were deemed to be preempted by the federal law. By upholding parts of the state law, the state law enforcers in Arizona can request legal documents while interrogating persons suspected of breaking the law.
Ultimately, the dilemma of state rights on enforcement of immigration matters was neither strengthened nor weakened by the Supreme Court decision. Arizona law enforcers can help with immigration situations to a certain degree, and this was the original purpose of the passing the law. Creating an environment where everyone in the state is in good standing with the law will require a longer period of time to obtain.
There are problems in regard to immigration, itself. There are legalities over the capacity of a State to oversee its own borders. There additionally is the dilemma over giving a state the authority to do what the Constitution meant for the Federal Government to manage.
The issues specific to Arizona have to do with the proximity to Mexico, and the large land border that they share. The southern border of Arizona is largely desert and sparsely populated. There are no sizable population centers on either side of the border for hundreds of miles. The fact that the southern border of Arizona is merely a political boundary, not following any natural land formations or rivers, makes the boundary hard to distinguish from the ground.
As a result, the area is used for illegal entry into the United States from Mexico. The large land area provides miles of open space to cross without regular patrols to guard the border. In the 1990's, an estimated 80,000 people who had come across the border illegally were estimated to be living in Arizona. By 2010, that number had risen to nearly half-a-million.
The priority to the Arizona state government was the lack of measures taken by the federal law enforcement agencies. Whatever the reasons were for the absence of federal action, Arizona needed to employ their own state law enforcement personnel in handling immigration issues. To achieve this, they needed to have a bill enacted at the state level. The law was introduced in the state senate as SB 1070, and became identified as "Arizona SB 1070".
The legal challenges to the law included a law suit by the Attorney General of the United States that ended up being heard by the Supreme Court. In a 5-3 decision, parts of the law were upheld, and other parts were deemed to be preempted by the federal law. By upholding parts of the state law, the state law enforcers in Arizona can request legal documents while interrogating persons suspected of breaking the law.
Ultimately, the dilemma of state rights on enforcement of immigration matters was neither strengthened nor weakened by the Supreme Court decision. Arizona law enforcers can help with immigration situations to a certain degree, and this was the original purpose of the passing the law. Creating an environment where everyone in the state is in good standing with the law will require a longer period of time to obtain.
About the Author:
Where do I go from here? Check out which resources are available to apply for green card or obtain residency status at MexicoAndUS.com. To find out more about green card renewal check out our information at at MexicoAndUs.com
No comments:
Post a Comment