Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling on the Arizona immigration law known as Arizona SB 1070 where the state of Arizona desired the ability to assist federal law enforcers on matters of immigration. The Arizona law basically reiterated federal law, and being passed at the state level, allowed state law enforcers to have jurisdiction over the matters contained in the bill.
The Supreme Court handed down a ruling 5-3 to uphold portions of the Arizona legislation, and also ruled that parts of the state law were preempted by federal law. In their ruling, Justices Scalia and Thomas expressed their position in which the legislation should have been completely supported or struck down, as a whole. Justice Scalia wrote, "Even in its international relations, the federal government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a union of independent states, who have their own sovereign powers".
Various states have laws regarding immigration that may be now considered to be upheld or preempted by the same ruling. In North Carolina, for example, a recent bill was introduced outlawing the use of federal consular documents as legally suitable identification for immigrants. Also a senate bill was introduced stating that illegal immigrants were ineligible to be given public assistance.
In Georgia, a measure that is awaiting the governor's approval includes items similar to the Arizona law. It allows for the state to detain and punish undocumented immigrants, and to penalize any who would transport individuals they knew to be in the country unlawfully.
Alabama is right now debating a law that requires the names of men and women brought before the court with allegations of illegal immigration, to be published and released to the public. This regulation has popular favor, but is opposed by certain groups dealing with civil rights, and the potential for doing harm to legal citizens.
In South Carolina, a measure was agreed upon, much like the Arizona legislation, that allows state law personnel to request identification from individuals involved with other infractions. They are authorized to detain those without legal identification. The matter that is being brought up is that the thousands of employees on the coastal area of South Carolina are going to be afraid to show up for work, and that the positions will be left unattended. The fear is that this will disrupt the summer tourist season in that region.
The Supreme Court decision on the Arizona measure has done little to support or impede the efforts of the individual states as they attempt to deal with the many-faceted matter of immigration. Perhaps a more robust action by the federal government is what is at some point essential in helping solve some of these situations.
The Supreme Court handed down a ruling 5-3 to uphold portions of the Arizona legislation, and also ruled that parts of the state law were preempted by federal law. In their ruling, Justices Scalia and Thomas expressed their position in which the legislation should have been completely supported or struck down, as a whole. Justice Scalia wrote, "Even in its international relations, the federal government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a union of independent states, who have their own sovereign powers".
Various states have laws regarding immigration that may be now considered to be upheld or preempted by the same ruling. In North Carolina, for example, a recent bill was introduced outlawing the use of federal consular documents as legally suitable identification for immigrants. Also a senate bill was introduced stating that illegal immigrants were ineligible to be given public assistance.
In Georgia, a measure that is awaiting the governor's approval includes items similar to the Arizona law. It allows for the state to detain and punish undocumented immigrants, and to penalize any who would transport individuals they knew to be in the country unlawfully.
Alabama is right now debating a law that requires the names of men and women brought before the court with allegations of illegal immigration, to be published and released to the public. This regulation has popular favor, but is opposed by certain groups dealing with civil rights, and the potential for doing harm to legal citizens.
In South Carolina, a measure was agreed upon, much like the Arizona legislation, that allows state law personnel to request identification from individuals involved with other infractions. They are authorized to detain those without legal identification. The matter that is being brought up is that the thousands of employees on the coastal area of South Carolina are going to be afraid to show up for work, and that the positions will be left unattended. The fear is that this will disrupt the summer tourist season in that region.
The Supreme Court decision on the Arizona measure has done little to support or impede the efforts of the individual states as they attempt to deal with the many-faceted matter of immigration. Perhaps a more robust action by the federal government is what is at some point essential in helping solve some of these situations.
About the Author:
Where do I go from here? Find out what resources are available to apply for green card or obtain residency at MexicoAndUS.com. To find out more about green card renewal stop by our site at MexicoAndUs.com
No comments:
Post a Comment