Immigration Law

Immigration law is one of great importance as well as an equal amount of controversy and in order to get a better understanding of what these laws stand for it is imperative that a number of cases are reviewed in an effort to distinguish where the supreme courts stand in regards to this matter. As in many other topics immigration law needs to be continuously evaluated to ensure that those that find themselves involved in conflicting situations regarding this matter are treated fairly. This memo will address the constitutionality of immigration law as well as try to help to determine whether the fourteenth amendment should be applied to those that are not American citizens. A review of six cases has been researched in an effort to find pertinent information concerning the matters of immigration, deportation, equal protection, the scope of protection and much more in order to distinguish if there is a pattern that can be noted involving immigration law. Deferred action for childhood arrivals, also know as DAPA is one of the areas that has an abundance of information that relates to the constitutional struggles that are being dealt with on a day to day basis within the country. The policies and procedures that have been put in place to regulate the immigrant population are constantly debated and questioned about whether or not they are reasonable. The government has the duty to protect the citizens but while doing so there is a constant risk that others may be mistreated during this process. One can not simply deny certain things to illegal immigrants or treat them unjustly simply based on where they came from.

Many arguments have been made and some have gone as far as to say that the vast majority of people that reside in the United States today are descendants from immigrants. While it seems to be recognized that immigrants help the country in some ways such as providing “cheap labor”, they also have the ability to put a strain on the economy in some ways.

Issue: The BIll of Rights has been put in place in order to ensure that people are treated fairly. These rights are intended to make people feel safe and secure within the United States however the truth remains that the U.S is a multiculturally diverse country and many of it’s residents do not currently have legal citizenship. The question at hand is are these immigrants entitled to some of the basic rights that American citizens are entitled to, and where does one draw the line as it pertains to common resources that are given freely to Americans. These issues are directly related to the large number of aliens within the country who do not have a lawful right to be in this country

Background: The following immigration cases explain the magnitude of the issue of immigration. In Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) the State of Arizona in 2010 enacted a statute called the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. This act was defined to have a  purpose  to "discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States." (Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492; 183 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2012)). The law's provisions establish an official state policy of "attrition through enforcement." (Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492; 183 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2012) ). The resolution of this case is dependent on  whether federal law preempts and renders invalid four separate provisions of the state law.

        This case is a complex one in that it relates to many topics.  One of the provisions would make it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State (Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492; 183 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2012) ). Two other provisions give specific arrest authority and investigative duties with respect to certain aliens to state and local law enforcement officers. This meant that if a person of immigrant status was in the state then their chances of arrest would be far more likely than that of an American citizen which would appear to be unconstitutional in itself.

        With this act it was expected for immigrants to carry their paperwork proving that they were eligible for employment on them at all times so that they could be easily identified.

Section 6 authorizes officers to arrest without a warrant a person, although many are aware that the fifth amendment protects against acts such as these. "the officer only needed to possess that he had probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States." Section 2(B) provides that officers who conduct a stop, detention, or arrest must in some circumstances make efforts to verify the person's immigration status(Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492; 183 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2012) ).

The ruling in this case held  that the federal government has preempted the field of immigration policy and chose not to criminalize such activity; therefore, the states may not do so.  This meant that the federal government had the ultimate authority in the end and immigrants that were in violation of the initial expectations would not face incarceration for the requirements that were not met.

Case Law: Plyler v. Doe, is a class action case held due to the fact that certain children of that were not of United States descent were expected to be denied certain rights that are easily obtainable to those that are U.S. citizens. This particular case focuses on educational expenses Texas legislature had a law passed which suggested withholding funds for the education of children of illegal aliens. The ethical factors in this case are quite controversial to say the least. This law furthermore authorized local school districts to deny entry in the public schools of the state to these children as well as funding for education to those that were unauthorized immigrant children. Plyler v. Doe was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in September 1977 and involved Mexican children that resided in Smith County, Texas that had no known record that they had taken the steps to reside in the United States legally. Although these children did not have the proper documentation to support their stay in the country there was still a need for the basic resources that any child needs to thrive. Education is a necessity for one that wishes to do well no matter where they live therefore there was an obvious need for review of the constitutionality of this  law. In order for a state to have the right to deny a particular group of individuals the same rights that are openly available to the majority of the public there should be a valid reason. It unfortunately becomes an open violation of one’s rights when these rights are denied. The only valid exception for this denial or one similar must be justified by showing a legitimate state interest and not one based on the simple fact that one is not a native of the country. When researching this case using NexisLexis and focusing in the constitutional law, equal protection and the scope of protection the information suggest that “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful”(NexisLexis). Equal protection as it pertains to the 14th amendment emphasizes “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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”(NexisLexis). This particular law in this case was questioned for the consistency that it had in regards to that of the fourteenth amendment and equal protection.