Assignment:
Respond to the following discussion.
Abstract
Arizona versus the United States is a case that makes a decision about unlawful aliens. The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Federal Alien Registration Requirements were in effect and failure to comply would result in a misdemeanor. The Ninth Circuit Court laid out the guidelines for potential benefits and detriments to police agencies. Law Enforcement are concerned with the possible future uses of the decision. The case discusses Intelligence, Terrorism, and Homeland Security but for Police its Politics and Police Administration.
Background
Arizona enacted a law in 2010 that gave power to local law enforcement authority and state immigration offenses that challenged in order to enact its own immigration enforcement (Center for American Progress, 2014, para. 1). Support Local Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act upset the state of Arizona over the preempted Federal Law. The argument sought a preliminary injunction for the state law to take no effect. The Ninth Circuit Court granted the injunction with respect tot the four provisions of the Arizona Law. High-ranking officials, acting as petitioners, argued that Arizona Law has a formal cooperative relationship between state and federal regarding implementation of Federal Laws. The United States argued that the states implementation would violate the authority to the implementation regulating the law thus making it invalid. Questions were presented in the manner of cooperation and communication for the federal immigration and imposed penalties for those who did not comply. The issue at hand was Arizona engaging in the federal immigration laws with cooperation and creating offenses and violations through state law for violating federal regulations for immigration.
Case Factors
Arizona has stayed confident that it has immigration problems within its state. The basis for this is that crime has increased and became a detriment for society by way of harmful act of violence. These facts only stand for the enacted law for supporting law enforcement and safe neighborhoods (Doug, W and Lee, A., 2012, para 5). The state wants to give local authorities more power and authority to handle immigration issues. According to the state of Arizona, it wants to deter illegal immigration. The way the police encounter people of interest is through stops or arrests. The officer must determine the status of the person if the police officer believes the person might be in an illegal immigrations status. The officer may proceed to check the status of the person before releasing them back into society. Immigration requires a person to carry documentation on the person at all times. The law also prohibits police officers from using a form of racial profiling by way race or origin when enforcing the law. Protecting human trafficking falls under the code of law for police officer to make viable stops when he or she believers that they have committed a violation of the law. These stops include civil traffic violations. The law requires an unlawful alien to be of interest if he or she engages in or performs act of soliciting in which law enforcement can act without a warrant if the police officer has probable cause to believe that he or she has demonstrated an act that could result in the removal from the United States. Employers also prohibit hiring illegal aliens, which causes fro the vehicle to be impounded since it was used for the illegal transportation of unlawful aliens. All of these factors fall underneath the law for supporting our law enforcement and safe neighborhood acts.
In this case, The United States challenged the District Court of Arizona. The evidence used against Arizona was presented in the form of a violation of the commerce clause, which preempted the framework for this law through the Immigration and Nationality Act. The dispute was over the injunction filed that ruled questions concerning the constitution should be resolved. The United States sought to overthrow the whole implementation. The court ruled and granted the preliminary injunction.
The Discussion
The main discussion is does the case impact health, safety and individual rights of citizens in the United States. The argument from Arizona is that it does not precisely engage in federal statue thus state officials have authority in cooperative enforcement in immigration laws that are federal. Federal jurisdiction concludes that they have sole authority of such immigration laws and that the state of Arizona undermines the authority of the federal government. Arizona sought to cut ties with illicit drug and human traffickers by way of means with this law in place. The state also made a very applying case that used the border as an example saying border patrol crimes are increasing as a result of staffing issues in the immigration laws.
The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Doug, W and Lee, A., 2012, para 10) maintains that the Federal government has not enforced the federal immigration laws. The center claims that the staffing issues threaten the population’s wellbeing. This staffing problem for the border is the prime example of how illegal aliens maintain jobs that are unsafe in working conditions. The freedom watch also plays a vital role in the racial discrimination of an individual’s race, which helps those in avoiding the statue by prohibiting law enforcement from considering those factors when encountering someone of interest. Due process plays a role when determining the status of a person. The burden of proving immigration status is complicated and can become a lengthy detainment process. The state has far less experience than the federal government concerning immigration laws. Human rights activist for religion make the case for family unity and human rights. Families separate for a better life by providing for them but the law would prevent that.
Impact on Policy
The Border Patrol has announced that its staffing issue has become a serious problem inside of Arizona. The state has fallen victim to home invasions, kidnappings and any crime for that matter related to immigration. Border Patrol also states that the federal government requires the state to provide benefits for illegal aliens, which is costly in an upward cost of billions of dollars. The staffing problem for border patrol actually hurts the American work force. The American work force has suffering lower incomes and unemployment because some employers choose to hire illegal aliens over the legal workforce, which is more expensive to them. Immigration laws by the state also cause tension in foreign relations with other nations by way of retaliation towards United States Citizens.
Analysis
The Arizona versus United States case is all about law enforcement working with federal agencies providing state laws to ensure penalties for illegal aliens. The preliminary injunction prevented Arizona from doing so by its first four provisions. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed this but the plaintiff leeway if they could prove its merit by succeeding (Doug, W and Lee, A., 2012, para 17). Based off the results, the court ruled in favor of the United States from the merits that they would succeed its claim to federal preempted by affirming the injunction. The state of Arizona argued that federal law in cooperation with federal officer would better the situation rather than Arizona’s state laws. The government holds exclusive power to regulate federal immigration laws and the state of Arizona cannot adopt its own policy because it interrupts the objectives set forth by federal government.
The United States controls the immigration laws because it has territories that are conjoined in the relationships with other nations. The policy on immigration is crucial when referring to other nations. The infringement of federal rights on immigration policies has the ability to punish conduct, which is regulated by government.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled in the Arizona versus United States and determined federal laws concerning immigration with a statue that joined federal officers with state implying penalties fro the state but using federal laws (Supreme Court of the United States, 2012, para 1). Federal requirements were adhered to in this case. This agreement had a cooperative working relationship between state officials and federal, which promoted federal policies. The state of Arizona set policies and procedures in place but Congress had exclusive authority over said places, which gave the government, preempted authority. The balance in the implications grant power to immigrations laws both federally and statewide.
References:
Center for American Progress (2014). ‘Arizona v. United States’ in the US Supreme Court. A primer on the legal arguments in the landmark states’ rights case. Retrieved on July 13, 2014 from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/04/04/11413/arizona-v- united-states-in-the-u-s-supreme-court/
Dong, W. and Lee, A. (2012). Cornell University Law School. Arizona v. United States (11-182). Retrieved on July 13, 2014 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-182
Supreme Court of United States (2012). ARIZONA ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Retrieved on July 13, 2014 from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf