On April 13, 2010, the state of Arizona approved an immigration regulation where the objective was to allow state law enforcement to assist some situations concerning immigration status. The law similar to the federal law, even so, the Constitution grants the Federal Government the authority to regulate immigration. There has been much controversy brought on by the passing of this law.
There are problems on the subject of immigration, itself. There are legal issues that deal with the capacity of a State to oversee its own borders. There also is the concern over giving a state the legal ability to do something that the Constitution meant for the Federal Government to do.
The issues specific to Arizona have to do with the proximity to Mexico, and the large land border that they share. The southern border of Arizona is largely desert and sparsely populated. There are no sizable population centers on either side of the border for hundreds of miles. The fact that the southern border of Arizona is merely a political boundary, not following any natural land formations or rivers, makes the boundary hard to distinguish from the ground.
Because of this, the area is commonly utilized for illegal entrance to the United States from Mexico. The broad land area offers miles of wide open space to cross without regular patrols to safeguard the border. In the 1990's, an estimated 80,000 individuals who had entered through the border illegally were estimated to be residing in Arizona. By 2010, that amount had increased to nearly 500,000.
The priority to the Arizona state government was the lack of measures taken by the federal law enforcement agencies. Whatever the reasons were for the absence of federal action, Arizona needed to employ their own state law enforcement personnel in handling immigration issues. To achieve this, they needed to have a bill enacted at the state level. The law was introduced in the state senate as SB 1070, and became identified as "Arizona SB 1070".
The objections to the law included a law suit by the Attorney General of the United States that was finally heard by the Supreme Court. In a 5-3 decision, portions of the law were upheld, while other sections were said to be preempted by the federal law. By maintaining parts of the state law, the state law personnel in Arizona can ask for legal documents while interrogating individuals suspected of breaking the law.
In the end, the question of state authority on enforcement of immigration issues was not strengthened nor made weaker by the Supreme Court decision. Arizona law enforcers can help with immigration situations to a certain extent, which was the original objective of the presenting the law. Creating a condition where everybody in the state has legal status and every individual is judged to be in line with the law may take a longer period of time to accomplish.
There are problems on the subject of immigration, itself. There are legal issues that deal with the capacity of a State to oversee its own borders. There also is the concern over giving a state the legal ability to do something that the Constitution meant for the Federal Government to do.
The issues specific to Arizona have to do with the proximity to Mexico, and the large land border that they share. The southern border of Arizona is largely desert and sparsely populated. There are no sizable population centers on either side of the border for hundreds of miles. The fact that the southern border of Arizona is merely a political boundary, not following any natural land formations or rivers, makes the boundary hard to distinguish from the ground.
Because of this, the area is commonly utilized for illegal entrance to the United States from Mexico. The broad land area offers miles of wide open space to cross without regular patrols to safeguard the border. In the 1990's, an estimated 80,000 individuals who had entered through the border illegally were estimated to be residing in Arizona. By 2010, that amount had increased to nearly 500,000.
The priority to the Arizona state government was the lack of measures taken by the federal law enforcement agencies. Whatever the reasons were for the absence of federal action, Arizona needed to employ their own state law enforcement personnel in handling immigration issues. To achieve this, they needed to have a bill enacted at the state level. The law was introduced in the state senate as SB 1070, and became identified as "Arizona SB 1070".
The objections to the law included a law suit by the Attorney General of the United States that was finally heard by the Supreme Court. In a 5-3 decision, portions of the law were upheld, while other sections were said to be preempted by the federal law. By maintaining parts of the state law, the state law personnel in Arizona can ask for legal documents while interrogating individuals suspected of breaking the law.
In the end, the question of state authority on enforcement of immigration issues was not strengthened nor made weaker by the Supreme Court decision. Arizona law enforcers can help with immigration situations to a certain extent, which was the original objective of the presenting the law. Creating a condition where everybody in the state has legal status and every individual is judged to be in line with the law may take a longer period of time to accomplish.
0 comments:
Post a Comment