Pros And Cons Of Arizona Vs United States

Arizona v. United States

The case of Arizona v. United States is a Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of the state of Arizona trying to enact laws against illegal aliens inside the state’s borders. These previsions implemented by the state of Arizona conflicted with the Federal Government, by infringing upon the right of the government to exclusively regulate immigration. This paper will discuss facts, and explain some issues having to do with immigration laws within the United States and its conflict with the state of Arizona. It will go over the actual opinion as well as opinions from the justices. It will conclude with the pros and cons of the decision of Arizona v. United States. Arizona enacted a statute in 2010 to address
the pressing issue of larger numbers of unlawful aliens in the state (Justia.com, 2012). The statute is called Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe neighborhood act, which was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (Cornell University Law School, 2010). The act allows law enforcement who has reasonable suspicion the right to make an individual prove they are a US citizen and if they are an unlawful citizen they will be charged with criminal offense (Cornell University Law School, 2010).
The United States argues that legislation takes supremacy over state or local laws and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the state law from taking effect, and caused The United States to sue Arizona (Cornell University Law School, 2012). The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect (Justia.com, 2012). The four sections were placed on hold till the hearing was completed and the final opinion was established. The sections in question were “Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C)makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government (supremecourt.gov, 2012).”
Reasonable suspicion falls under the fourth amendment, which the fourth amendment is defined as: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Harr, Hess, & Orthmann, 2012).” Reasonable suspicion allows an officer to make a stop and infringe on a person’s liberty temporarily, but only be completed on the grounds that the officer has suspicion to suspect illegal activity (Harr, Hess, & Orthmann, 2012).
The problem is that in order to complete an immigration issue the individual will not be stopped in a reasonable amount of time, and discrimination would be used in order to assume that one is an illegal alien. Giving law enforcement this type of discretion could cause conflict in Arizona as some may say they are being discriminated against due to race and
color.
Section three of Arizona’s statute Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe neighborhood act otherwise known as S.B. 1070 creates misdemeanor charges against immigrants that do not carry their registration documents (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Arizona wanted to mandate penalties from the state as well as by federal law (supremecourt.gov, 2012). The United States contended as Congress has does not allow states to regulate immigration laws (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Pennsylvania tried to in act a similar act The Alien Registration act of 1939, and was denied (LLC, 2012). They were advised in this case that the federal government provided complete standards for registering as an alien (LLC, 2012). The United States argument was that in order to keep peace there shall only be one sovereign responsible for maintaining a unified system to keep track of aliens within the nations and that will fall under federal law (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Section three is a violation of Article One Sec 8 clause three which states “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with Indian Tribes” (Harr, Hess, & Orthmann, 2012). There have been several cases that have tried to change alien registration laws, but have fallen short do to Congress leaving no room for states regulate the issue (supremecourt.gov, 2012). The final ruling of section three is to leave immigration registration at the federal level, as regulation registration needs not multiple handlers (Justia.com, 2012). Congress has implicated a level of force and action that shall be handled in regards to regulations and state-level laws create obstacles and there for state-law are preempted by federal law (Cornell University Law School, 2012). Section 5 (C) would create criminal misdemeanor charges for an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform any job duties as an independent contractor or as an employee (supremecourt.gov, 2012). There would be a fine up to $2,500 and could be faced with incarceration for up to six months (Justia.com, 2012). The United States was against section 5 (C) as the balance that has been created by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) would be disruptive (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Before IRCA there were no federal programs regulating employment of unauthorized aliens, so the states had authorization to precede with states individual laws (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Since the IRCA has been implemented states no longer have the power to regulate the employment relationship to protect their workers within the states (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Federal law makes it illegal for an employer to knowingly hire or continue employment of an unauthorized worker, and employers have to verify all employment (supremecourt.gov, 2012). There are criminal penalties and civil penalties if charged as well federal law will take in to account the number of times an employer has violated the law (supremecourt.gov, 2012). The illegal alien will not face any criminal penalties but will be subjected to civil matters (Justia.com, 2012). The outcome of Section 5 (C) just like section 3 was found to cause obstacles and for that state-law preempted the full objectives of federal law (supremecourt.gov, 2012). The careful balance of unauthorized employment to aliens would be in jeopardy. The goals of section 5 (C) are along the same lines as federal law, but the enforcement policy causes a conflict that is deemed unnecessary. Any obstacles that state laws bring to the regulatory system made by Congress shall be preempted by federal law (supremecourt.gov, 2012). In section 6 of S.B 1070 Arizona wanted to allow state officers to take matters in their own hands. Section 6 would allow officers to make an arrest if the officer had probable cause to believe that someone committed a public offense (crime in another jurisdiction and Arizona) that would make them removable from the United States (U.S Supreme Court Media OYEZ, 2011). The United States was opposed to this section because it would create obstacles with the removal system Congress had already implemented (supremecourt.gov, 2012). The United States does allow some aliens to remain in the states, since they have not committed a crime (supremecourt.gov, 2012). In the case INS v. Lopez-Mendoza the exclusionary rule was in question, but the courts found that the removal of an alien was a civil matter and not a criminal matter (U.S Supreme Court Media, 2011). Arizona would give greater power state authorities than Congress has given to trained immigration officers (Cornell University Law School, 2012). There would be no specific time that an individual would be detained and the officials discretion could cause conflict with those residing in Arizona for purposes such as: investigation work, college students, or a veteran (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Individuals may feel they are being harassed by state officials. State officials in this matter do not seek the input of Federal Government of an arrest and would it even be warranted (supremecourt.gov, 2012). The Federal law does allow for limited circumstances that an officer can take immigration policies into their own hands (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Care needs to be met in order to carry out immigration laws imposed by the Federal Government. The Attorney General has specific direction in handling matters that involve immigration because of the complexities involved in the enforcement procedures (Justia.com, 2012). Even though Arizona argued the federal statute that gives permission to state officers to work alongside the Attorney General there are laws that constitute cooperation (supremecourt.gov, 2012). In order to reference what would and would not constitute cooperation The Department of Homeland Security gives examples in certain circumstances (Cornell University Law School, 2012). The law concluded that Congress has implemented laws that do not allow states to make warrantless arrest, on the hunch that the person may possibly be a removable alien (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Section six like the other section creates obstacles to what Congress has already implemented (supremecourt.gov, 2012). It is not constitutional acceptable for section six to be implemented and is preempted by federal law (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Section 2 (B) relies on reasonable suspicion, and gives law officials the authority to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest on other legitimate cases (supremecourt.gov, 2012).
This section would give officials the authority to contact ICE (Law Enforcement Support Center) once an individual is detained and before released to ensure they are not an illegal alien (supremecourt.gov, 2012). There are three stipulations that Arizona implemented to S.B 1070 Section 2(B) which are: 1. The person in question is not to be considered an illegal alien if the carry valid Arizona ID card, 2.Officers may not discriminated against race, color, or national origin, 3. Federal Law regulations have to be met regarding immigration, and the protection of the civil rights of everyone, and respecting the rights/privileges/immunities of the United States citizens (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Arizona pointed out that Congress made it clear that no special training and no formal agreement needs to be addressed when making communication with the Federal Government regarding immigration statuses (supremecourt.gov, 2012). ICE is opened 24 hours a day 365 days a year; they will assist federal, state, local corrections and the courts with immigration concerns (U.S Department of Homeland Security , 2012). Law enforcement officials have access to 100 million records of aliens and are maintained by the Department of Homeland Security (U.S Department of Homeland Security ,
2012). There for Arizona does not see it as an issue to implement section 2 (b).
The United States says this type of action imposes 2 obstacles with Congress immigration policy (supremecourt.gov, 2012). First concern is mandating status checks and secondly the possibility of prolonged detention while checks are being performed (supremecourt.gov, 2012). The United States agrees with ICE policy, but feels it could cause constitutional concern (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Several circumstances are address and situations could be as simple as someone committing a civil offence and the need for arrest is not there. So if the officer would contact ICE in this situation the individual would be held at an unreasonable amount of time.
The opinion of the courts concluded that in order for there to be preemption the court must be guided by two circumstances (United States Courts for the Ninth Circute, 2012). As earlier addressed section 3 which make failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor is preempted by federal law and all issues are to be handled through The Federal Government to avoid obstacles (Cornell University Law School, 2012). Section 5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State is also preempted by federal law. IRCA has been implemented to handle all employment issues. There is no need to create further obstacles (Cornell University Law School, 2012). Section 6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States” is preempted by federal law as making a warrantless arrest creates obstacles with Congress and the laws already in place (Cornell University Law School, 2012). Section 2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government is pronounced not an obstacle to federal law and therefore it is not preempted by federal law. The USA did not provide enough evidence to interoperate how constitutional questions could arise (supremecourt.gov, 2012). State courts have to have an opportunity to construct it and prove that enforcement does not conflict with federal immigration law (supremecourt.gov, 2012).
Given federal law and the constitution I would have to agree fully with the ruling at hand. I feel as though if all the states were to get involved with immigration process there would be many issues to come. I do feel as though the state of Arizona does have reason for concern but should leave it up to immigration to handle their concerns. “Hundreds of thousands of aliens are removed by the Federal Government every year” 476, 405 returns without a removal order and 387,242 removals occurred in 2010 (supremecourt.gov, 2012). The Federal Government is doing their job to eliminate illegal aliens the proper way. As far as section 2 (b) until there is reason to say that contacting ICE is deemed inappropriate and violates any constitutional issues I see that moving forward with the decision is fine.
The ruling was a 5-3 and even though all but section 2 (B) was agreed in favor of the United States Justice Thomas, Alito, and Scalla all had further insight that wanted to add to the opinion. Justice Thomas and Justice Scalla did not feel the four sections were preempted by federal law, and agrees that the State of Arizona has reason to want to further pursue actions against illegal aliens (U.S Supreme Court Media OYEZ, 2011). Thomas stated to section 5 (C) has nothing to do with states imposing criminal sanctions on illegal immigrants (supremecourt.gov, 2012). I would disagree with him, if the Federal Government implemented IRCA to handle such cases it should be brought to them and not be handles at a state level. Justice Scalla said this in her descending opinion “I accept as a given that State regulation is excluded by the Constitution when (1) it has been prohibited by a valid federal law, or (2) it conflicts with federal regulation—when, for example, it admits those whom federal regulation would exclude, or excludes those whom federal regulation would admit (supremecourt.gov, 2012).” I feel as though her saying such agrees to the federal law looking over all 3 section there are flaws, if Arizona would have worded there act different or would have put more consideration for federal laws I feel there would have greater merit. Justice Alito approved section three, but disagreed with sections 5 (c) and 6, I feel as though if he could agree with section 3 and 2 (B) there should be no reason to agree with it all. I feel this is the land of the free and that other Nations depend on us just as we depend on them. I do not feel it would be correct to impose criminal actions for civil matters. I feel as though if Arizona or any other state would like to impose their own immigration laws they should adhere to the Federal Governments guidelines, or prove (with examples) how enacting such an act would be beneficial for all boarding states.

References:
Cornell University Law School. (2010, August 19). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved September 3, 2012, from Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/support_our_law_enforcement_and_safe_neighborhoods_act_of_2010
Cornell University Law School. (2012, April 25). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved September 3, 2012, from Arizona v. United States: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-182
Harr, J., Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. H. (2012). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Belmont, California, USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Justia.com. (2012). US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved September 2012, from Arizona v. United States: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/11-182/
LLC, C. B. (2012). Case Briefs . Retrieved 2012, from Hines, Secretary of Labor ad Industry of Pennsylvania v. Davidowitz: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/limits-on-state-regulatory-and-tax-power/hines-secretary-of-labor-ad-industry-of-pennsylvania-v-davidowitz/ supremecourt.gov. (2012). pdf. Retrieved 2012, from Arizona et al v. United States: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
U.S Department of Homeland Security . (2012, May 29). ICE. Retrieved 2012, from Fact Sheet: Law Enforcement Support Center: http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/lesc.htm
U.S Supreme Court Media. (2011). OYEZ. Retrieved September 2012, from INS v. Lopez: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_491
U.S Supreme Court Media OYEZ. (2011). OYEZ. Retrieved September 2012, from Arizona v. United States.
United States Courts for the Ninth Circute. (2012, August 8). Retrieved 2012, from USA v. State of Arizona , no.16645: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000470