Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling on the Arizona immigration law known as Arizona SB 1070 where the state of Arizona desired the ability to assist federal law enforcers on matters of immigration. The Arizona law basically reiterated federal law, and being passed at the state level, allowed state law enforcers to have jurisdiction over the matters contained in the bill.
The Supreme Court handed down a ruling 5-3 to uphold portions of the Arizona legislation, and also ruled that parts of the state law were preempted by federal law. In their ruling, Justices Scalia and Thomas expressed their position in which the legislation should have been completely supported or struck down, as a whole. Justice Scalia wrote, "Even in its international relations, the federal government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a union of independent states, who have their own sovereign powers".
Various other states have statutes regarding immigration which could be now considered to be supported or preempted by the same measure. In North Carolina, for example, a recent bill was created banning the use of federal consular documents as legally accepted identification for immigrants. Also a senate bill was offered stating that illegal immigrants were ineligible to receive public assistance.
In Georgia, a bill that is waiting for the governor's signature contains measures similar to the Arizona law. It allows for the state to detain and penalize undocumented immigrants, and to penalize any who would transport people they knew to be in the country illegally.
Alabama is currently debating a bill that requires the names of men and women brought before the court with accusations of illegal immigration, to be posted and made public. This regulation has popular favor, but is opposed by several groups addressing civil rights, and the potential for doing harm to legitimate residents.
In South Carolina, a law was signed, similar to the Arizona legislation, that enables state law enforcers to check identification from individuals suspected of other violations. They can detain those individuals without lawful identification. The issue that is being mentioned is that the thousands of employees on the coastal area of South Carolina will be afraid to show up for work, and that the jobs that they would otherwise do will be left undone. The concern is that this is going to disrupt the summer tourist season in that state.
The Supreme Court ruling on the Arizona law has done little to help or hinder the efforts of the individual states as they try to deal with the many-faceted issue of immigration. Perhaps a stronger action by the federal government is what is ultimately needed to help solve some of these issues.
The Supreme Court handed down a ruling 5-3 to uphold portions of the Arizona legislation, and also ruled that parts of the state law were preempted by federal law. In their ruling, Justices Scalia and Thomas expressed their position in which the legislation should have been completely supported or struck down, as a whole. Justice Scalia wrote, "Even in its international relations, the federal government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a union of independent states, who have their own sovereign powers".
Various other states have statutes regarding immigration which could be now considered to be supported or preempted by the same measure. In North Carolina, for example, a recent bill was created banning the use of federal consular documents as legally accepted identification for immigrants. Also a senate bill was offered stating that illegal immigrants were ineligible to receive public assistance.
In Georgia, a bill that is waiting for the governor's signature contains measures similar to the Arizona law. It allows for the state to detain and penalize undocumented immigrants, and to penalize any who would transport people they knew to be in the country illegally.
Alabama is currently debating a bill that requires the names of men and women brought before the court with accusations of illegal immigration, to be posted and made public. This regulation has popular favor, but is opposed by several groups addressing civil rights, and the potential for doing harm to legitimate residents.
In South Carolina, a law was signed, similar to the Arizona legislation, that enables state law enforcers to check identification from individuals suspected of other violations. They can detain those individuals without lawful identification. The issue that is being mentioned is that the thousands of employees on the coastal area of South Carolina will be afraid to show up for work, and that the jobs that they would otherwise do will be left undone. The concern is that this is going to disrupt the summer tourist season in that state.
The Supreme Court ruling on the Arizona law has done little to help or hinder the efforts of the individual states as they try to deal with the many-faceted issue of immigration. Perhaps a stronger action by the federal government is what is ultimately needed to help solve some of these issues.
0 comments:
Post a Comment