Most illegals come from Mexico and then Central America or Asia.
The least comes from the Middle East. Most are concerned about immigrations burden on government services and then jobs. Immigrants dont necessarily hurt American customs/way of life. Republicans and Independents favor SB1070 and Democrats dont. Latinos prefer illegals to pay a fine but not deported. Least prefers deportation.
Formatted: Font: 11 pt
SB1070 Made it a misdemeanor for non-citizens to fail to carry their immigration status papers as required under federal law Authorizes Arizona police to check the papers of anyone whom they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant Authorizes police to detain those without proper identification. Attacks 1. The law is racist because it causes police to profile Latinos and therefore violates their civil rights. 2. It impinges on what the US. Government says are its exclusive powers: to regulate immigration, to conduct foreign policy, and to regulate interstate commerce. a. Preempted by federal law and violates the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause. i. Constitution affords the federal government to establish uniform immigration laws and regulate international commerce. ii. The Constitution affords the President authority over foreign affairs. b. Conflict with and undermine the federal governments careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives i. Creates a series of state immigration crimes and expands the opportunities to push aliens towards incarceration despite Congresss considered judgment not the criminalize. ii. Immigration laws are affected by and have impacts on U.S. foreign policy. 1. Foreign relations 2. U.S. ability to fairly and consistently enforce federal immigration laws and provide immigration-related humanitarian relief 3. Ability to exercise the discretion vested in the executive branch > non-uniform treatment Counterarguments None of the challenged sections are preempted Cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigrant laws Establish state crimes that mirror existing federal laws Plaintiff must demonstrate that compliance with both State and federal law is impossible or that the state law stands as an obstacle to the objectives of Congress Court held that the States do have authority to act with respect to aliens, at least where such actions mirrors federal objectives and further a legitimate state goal. Does not addressed whether aliens can or cannot come to the State, nor does it regulate entry in anyways. In De Canas v. BICA, the fact that aliens (> foreign affairs > per se preempted under federal government) are the subject of a state statute does not mandate a finding of preemption.
Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Formatted: Normal, Justified
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0" Formatted: Justified, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75" Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Justified, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Space After: 0 pt, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75", Widow/Orphan control, Adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between Asian text and numbers
In De Canas v. Bica, the Supreme Court articulated three tests to determine whether federal law preempts a state or local statute relating to immigration. The tests for determining preemption are: 1. Constitutional preemption: Is the state or locality attempting to regulate immigration? 2. Field preemption: Did Congress intend to occupy the field and oust state or local power? 3. Conflict preemption: Does the state or local law stand as an obstacle to or conflict with federal law, making compliance with both the state and federal law impossible? Federal officials allowed SB1070 to be distorted by misrepresentations. Plaintiff will not suffer harm. Enjoing SB1070 will inflict harm on the State and its citizens.
Formatted: Font: +Body (Cambria), 11 pt
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Justified, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.75" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.75"
Nations Immigration Laws Careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests Immigration and Nationalization Ac of 1953 (INA) o Congress sets forth frame work and determines: Which aliens can enter and reside Which aliens may be removed The consequences for unlawful presence Penalties for violated entry/condition of residence/employment Process to become naturalized citizens o Infinitely variable conditions > Congress vest in the executive branch considerable discretion in enforcing provisions o Tasked DHS* and DOJ Priorities for aliens who pose a danger to national security or public safety Alien registration system? Decisions to forego removal or criminal penalties result not only from resource constrains, but also from affirmative policy considerations Unlawful presence only should not subject an alien to criminal penalties. X After previously removed/voluntarily departing Unlawful entry at the border Likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained * Unlawful presence may subject the alien to removal. Criminalizes smuggling, knowing attempt to bring an alien into the U.S., knowing in reckless disregard that an alien has unlawfully entered, attempts to transport the alien; harboring Directed at the smuggler, not the incidental transportation or alien. Prohibits the hiring of aliens not authorized to work in the U.S. Penalties for fraudulent documents. Improve interior enforcement > increased cooperation between federal, state, and local authorities.
