B. (2010). Immigration and Nationality Law Cases and Materials (4th ed.). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.…
Max Ehrenfreund begins his article by citing a federal district judge’s opinion. He mentions that the judge said Obama administration cannot transfer out a plan to defer deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants, most of them parents of children born here in the United States. Then, he gives some explanation what this executive action does and raises question regarding legality of the President action on immigration. Finally, he ends his article by giving a hyperlink to read more on the legal debate about this…
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.…
The legal issue presented in Arizona v. United States is whether federal immigration laws preclude Arizona’s cooperative law enforcement efforts and implicitly preempt provisions of Arizona’s immigration law (S.B. 1070). My team and I believe that S.B. 1070 violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal law the “supreme law of the land.” As such, S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally intrudes on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration law and should therefore be nullified.…
On January 19, 2000 Lazaro Gonzalez, plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging that the INS lacked the authority to reject the asylum applications and was required by federal statutes and regulations to accept and adjudicate those applications. Defendants urge this Court to dismiss the action or, alternatively, to grant summary judgment. Defendants attack the Complaint on various grounds, each of which is addressed below. Having carefully studied this matter, and mindful of the limits on this Court's authority, the Court concludes that Defendants' Motion To Dismiss or Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted.…
Bibliography: Guttentag, Lucas. "Discrimination, Preemption, and Arizona’s Immigration Law - Stanford Law Review." Stanford Law Review. N.p., 18 June 2012. Web. 8 Dec. 2012. <http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/discrimination-preemption>.…
II. The controversy is whether the Justice Department, Immigration Advocates, and citizens believe this law is unconstitutional.…
An example would be when a California law allowed a state official to classify arriving immigrants, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be unconstitutional because “the passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not the states.”…
Immigration has been an ongoing debate in the United States for a long time. Every year, there is a growing number of immigrants arriving in the U.S to find a place of refuge while others just want to achieve the American Dream. The American Dream is the idea that people should have the opportunity to succeed despite their circumstances. However, not everyone that enter the United States do so legally. Many do so illegally by being smuggled or overstaying their visit to a friend or family member in the U.S. As a result, the U.S government has made an immense effort to protect the border by ensuring that only the people legally permitted to enter the U.S. can do so. According to the Census Bureau “immigrants added more than 22 million people to the U.S population in the last decade, equal to 80 percent of total population growth.” Many argue that this large number of immigrants has been a result of lack of or poor border security as well as a broken immigration system but that is not always the case.…
Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, "Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word "commerce" is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress' power over commerce is first laid out in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. In addition, the case United States v. Lopez is a prime example of Congress' ability to carry out the Commerce Clause to the furthest extent. Lastly, the case National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation brings to light the Wagner Act of 1935. Through a review of these three cases, it can be concluded that there are no real limitations on Congress when regulating commerce.…
SU, RICK. "The States Of Immigration." William & Mary Law Review 54.4 (2013): 1339-1407. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.…
The Fourteenth Amendment states that all persons born and naturalized in the U.S. and under American jurisdiction are citizens. It has been core part of American law for centuries and has changed America for the better. The Fourteenth Amendment has been the cause of many arguments over the past few years especially in terms of undocumented immigrants.…
At present, the U.S. immigration system is burdened both by policy and implementation challenges. It is barely able to meet the commitments required by law and policy and is ill-prepared to address new challenges and mandates. Agreement that the system is broken may be the only point of consensus among many diverse stakeholders. The Task Force believes that immigration laws and policies are broken in four ways:…
More specifically, the notable policy trend in contemporary immigration legislation involves the heavy emphasis on border enforcement as the principal solution to the issue as a whole. The comprehensive processes that were once established through the legislative bills of the 1980’s and 90’s, such as the family reunification programs, legal amnesty clauses, and population ceilings, are now largely absent from the one-dimensional enforcement system utilized today. It is within the scope of this philosophical shift that has elicited the question of why the most recently implemented immigration policies have been limited to the expansion of border…
We all make mistakes, some small, some big, but most of us learn from those mistakes. When we make those mistakes we want to be forgiven, heard, and treated fairly and inhumanely. We expect a second chance even if our mistake lead to incarceration and temporary loss of our family, friends and freedom.…