The court considers political redistricting battles being fought across the nation and will decide whether federal regulators still hold the authority to police the nation's airwaves. Obama's administration has refuted Arizona's SB 1070, which "directs law enforcement to play a much more active role in identifying illegal immigrants and makes it a crime for them to seek work."
The government is asking the court to recognize that the Constitution gives federal government more power over national problems (i.e. immigration, foreign trade, etc.). "'As the framers understood, it is the national government that has the
ultimate responsibility to regulate the treatment of aliens while on
American soil, because it is the nation as a whole — not any single
state — that must respond to the international consequences of such
treatment,'Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the court in the government’s brief."
Many people believe Obama's administration is lacking secure border control. On the other hand, Romney is believed to have to harsh of a stance on immigration that it has caused him to score on the low range of Latino voters.
President of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Tom Saenz, has claimed that Arizona v. United States "relate to the structure of government, it is still very much a civil rights case."
The decision will have an effect beyond just Arizona. Several state have followed suit and attempted to strengthen their immigration laws similar to Arizona's. Arizona's governor, Gov. Jan Brewer claimed that " it is for the constitutional principle that every state has a duty and
obligation to protect its people, especially when the federal government
has failed in upholding its core responsibilities."
So, what do you all think about the court case and about the issues being presented here. I know for the A.P. Government class we're doing civil rights cases. Do you believe this would classify as a civil right's case as stated by Saenz? Or, do you believe that this case is only around to appease the public's demands?
4 comments:
I think that it is a civil rights case more than appeasing public opinion because I think that the public cares more about the economy than about who is coming into the U.S. Personally, I think that the Arizona law is a terrible law and should be found unconstitutional because it really is the duty of the federal government to regulate the country's borders, not the states. Just because the government hasn't been "doing its duty" doesn't mean that a state governor should be able to assume power so I think that Jan Brewer makes a really weak case. The Bill of Rights does give powers to the states that are denied to the federal government, but no where do I see an amendment that states that a state governor can assume the power of the federal government when they are of the opinion that the government is not preforming its duties to her satisfaction.
I believe that there should be a way to make it easier for illegals to become citizens instead of proclaiming them illegal and then doing nothing else (except talk about deporting them or self-deportation). People will higher illegals no matter what because illegal immigrants are more often than not willing to work for less so at this point, it would just save a lot of time and effort to come up with a solution to make them citizens. I do also believe in protecting our borders but not in the way that politicians have been advocating for so long now.
Gov. Jan Brewer was the one under the most pressure of committing to action what the locals deemed as a local problem: taking greater action against the illegal immigrants. I see where he thought where he could get away from the responsibility of undermining national government because they were not paying attention to southern states' standards of their borders. Correct me if I'm wrong here, is this law out of spite? Was it in the spirit of, "If you want something done right, do it yourself"? Is Arizona taking up the responsibility of defending against illegal immigrants from Mexico for the whole United States? People have been simplifying the case itself to the point that "it is either for the sympathetic immigrant rights group or the anti-immigrant voters that the government will appease".
To be honest, the morale down south isn't really pretty considering the latino community basically wants easier transitions from immigrant status to citizenship. Going back to what Patrick said about people proclaiming them illegal and deportation, I believe the complex citizen-reforming law would have to compromise some complexity in it to retain control over the flow of immigration as well as security. That goes without saying, I also would advocate for quicker, more accessible procedures for even green card carriers.
If you really think about it, the situation is like pinball. The left and right paddles are the opposing teams on either side of the AZ v. US case. The case itself is the ball and the bonuses are arguments, if hit by a certain paddle, the argument would be in their favor. Solicitor General's argument that the federal government does hold supreme law of the land could have been hit by Gov. Brewer in the way that the state also protects US citizens (from illegal immigrants) under concurrent duties. The angle on the AZ v. US ball that made the Gov. Brewer paddle miss this particular bonus was that international issues were solely settled on federal terms.
I would agree with Patrick that regulation of our borders should not fall upon the states. Besides giving undue power to states that happen to fall along the border, unstandardized border control would lead to massive exploitation of different states who might be more lenient than others in the realm of border control.
Furthermore, I agree with Patrick 100%: people will higher illegals no matter what because of the rules of capitalism. Illegals will do the same work for a much lower price. However, I do disagree with Patrick on the grounds of what should be done to ameliorate this situation. If any real change is to be enacted, it should take place at the workplace. Regulating the employers of illegals would be far more expeditious and effective than regulating the actual illegals, as they are much more difficult to track. Stringent workforce laws could be enacted now and pave the way for better immigration laws to be made while they are already effecting change.
I agree with Patrick, i believe it is more of a civil rights case more than anything else. It should be based on the federal government to decide who can enter the US and who cannot. With all these laws, bearly anyone who comes into the US to actually go through with becoming a citizen, is turned away. They already feel unwanted. How do people become citizens if they arent even allowed in the country? Not only that, but as far as i know, America was claimed territory before Europe and Spain got into the mix. I think the laws need to be deemed unconstitutional and there should be better, easier ways for immigrants to feel "welcomed" and become citizens of the place so many of us call home.
Post a Comment