On April 13, 2010, the state of Arizona enacted an immigration law where the intent was to permit state law enforcement to handle some situations with respect to immigration status. The law included the language as the federal law, however, the Constitution grants the Federal Government the authority to manage immigration. This state law has since caused a good measure of controversy.
There are issues concerning immigration, itself. There are legal issues over the ability of a State to govern its own borders. There is the concern over giving a state the authority to do what the Constitution intended for the Federal Government to handle.
The matters specific to Arizona have to do with the closeness to Mexico, and specifically the long land boundary which they have in common. The southern boundary of Arizona is essentially desert and sparsely inhabited. There aren't any good sized population centers near the national boundaries for hundreds of miles. In actuality, the southern border of Arizona is a political marker only, not following any natural land masses or rivers. This makes the boundary impossible to identify from the ground.
Because of this, the area is commonly utilized for illegal entrance to the United States from Mexico. The broad land area offers miles of wide open space to cross without regular patrols to safeguard the border. In the 1990's, an estimated 80,000 individuals who had entered through the border illegally were estimated to be residing in Arizona. By 2010, that amount had increased to nearly 500,000.
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 objections 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, portions of the law were upheld, and other parts were reckoned to be preempted by the federal law. By preserving parts of the state law, the state law officials in Arizona can ask for legitimate documents while responding to individuals possibly 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 issues concerning immigration, itself. There are legal issues over the ability of a State to govern its own borders. There is the concern over giving a state the authority to do what the Constitution intended for the Federal Government to handle.
The matters specific to Arizona have to do with the closeness to Mexico, and specifically the long land boundary which they have in common. The southern boundary of Arizona is essentially desert and sparsely inhabited. There aren't any good sized population centers near the national boundaries for hundreds of miles. In actuality, the southern border of Arizona is a political marker only, not following any natural land masses or rivers. This makes the boundary impossible to identify from the ground.
Because of this, the area is commonly utilized for illegal entrance to the United States from Mexico. The broad land area offers miles of wide open space to cross without regular patrols to safeguard the border. In the 1990's, an estimated 80,000 individuals who had entered through the border illegally were estimated to be residing in Arizona. By 2010, that amount had increased to nearly 500,000.
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 objections 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, portions of the law were upheld, and other parts were reckoned to be preempted by the federal law. By preserving parts of the state law, the state law officials in Arizona can ask for legitimate documents while responding to individuals possibly 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 permanent residency at MexicoAndUS.com. To find out more about green card renewal check out our information at at MexicoAndUs.com
No comments:
Post a Comment