Illegal Immigration Essay
Illegal Immigration has become a very big issue over the past several years. There are many people against illegal immigration to the United States. Over the years, there has been much debate of who should hold power when it comes to illegal Immigration issues, the Government or Individual States? Right now it is the Government that holds said authority but the debate is should it be the government or should it be individual states. This essay will show the pros and cons of the state and local authoritieshaving that authority.Illegal immigrants are defined as “all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents. Most unauthorized residents either entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave”. (Seminara, David, November 2012) The 14th amendment of the Constitution states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
” There are only two references in the Constitution that mention naturalization.One is the fore mentioned 14th amendment and the other being Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress. “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. Although this gives congress that authority and congress is a part of the government, I feel that the framers of the constitution were clear in what they wanted. The beginning of the Preamble of the Constitution states who gives authority to the government and in whom the rights established in the Constitution belong to and they are,” We the People of the United States. “ States and localities bear the primary responsibility for defining and prosecuting crimes.
But beyond enforcing the laws or ordinances of their state or locality, state and local officials may also have the authority to enforce some federal laws, especially criminal laws. Immigration law provides for both criminal punishments (e. g. , alien smuggling, which is prosecuted in the courts) and civil violations (e. g. , lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate administrative system).The states and localities have traditionally only been permitted to directly enforce the criminal provisions, whereas the enforcement of the civil provisions has been viewed as a federal responsibility with states playing an incidental supporting role”. (Congressional Research Service March 11, 2004) In many of these debates the pros to state and local authorities, holding power is that it will help the government enforce federal laws on immigration.
” Illegal aliens outnumber federal immigration agents by 5,000 to one. ”( Numbers USA 2012. Thus showing that the help of state and local authorities is much needed.
However, a con to this is that the Immigration enforcement of local authorities will more than likely cause distrust and cooperation between local authorities and illegal immigrants. For instance if illegal immigrants have to worry about possible imprisonment and deportation they are less likely to come forward and provide information to authorities. Will allowing State and local authorities’ power over illegal immigration be effective in helping our country as a whole? To me effectiveness means having an effective outcome.Therefore, for me I really do not feel that it will be completely effective.
Does allowing state and local authority to hold this power go along with the consistency of the Constitutional framework of the constitution? I feel that it does. I feel that it does. For me the framers of the constitution meant one thing and that was for everyone as a people to have a say in all things. We as a people give power to the government. On April 23 2010, Arizona enacted the Support our law enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods act, commonly known as S.
B. 1070. On June 6, 2010, the United States filed suit against Arizona and its governor, Janice K.
Brewer, contending that S. B. 1070 infringed on the Federal Government’s power to set national immigration policy and that it was preempted existing Federal law.
On July 28, 2010, a Federal district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing portions of the law from going into effect. Arizona appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s decision on April 11, 2011. Arizona then appealed to the U. S.
Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on December 12, 2011”. The Supreme Debates, September 2012 ) This right here shows that the government is not ready to allow the states to have any control over Illegal Immigration. As you have seen in this essay, there are many different debates on who should hold control over illegal immigration over the past couple of years. The Government has control, but should they hold all of that control? Should the states not have some type of control? I feel that the framers of the Constitution intended for us as a people to have some control in decisions made by the government.. I showed you the major pro and con to the States and Local Authorities having control Now you yourself can decide what you think.References1. Is Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law, S.
B. 1070, Constitutional? PROS. (2012). Supreme Court Debates, 15(6), 22-34 2.
Centers for Immigration Studies, Seminara, David (November 2012) www. cis. org/illegal 3.
Should state or local governments enforce federal immigration laws? Cogressional Research Service,March,11th 2004 www. procon. org 4. Illegal Immigration (2012) www. numbersusa. org/issues/illigal-immigration Top of Form