The influx of illegal immigrants into the United States affects every level of government in a significant way. Although the actual effects of illegal immigration are hotly debated, it remains the government's difficult duty to balance the massive amounts of data and diversity of public opinion in order to best accommodate the overall will of its people. In recent times we have witnessed a vast disconnect between what constituents want for their state versus what the nation as a whole considers Constitutionally justifiable. And therefore the necessity of a federal system, wherein the national government is playing a virtual tug-of-war with its states, comes to light. Using the issue of Illegal Immigration as our model, we can see how the national government and state governments are forced to cooperate and sometimes facilitate the success of policies when solving relatively complex matters of law .
First through a system of checks and balances, the national government proposes and passes laws that are eventually implemented both at the federal and state level. The passage and implementation of these or any type of laws is arduous to say the least and requires the coordination of all three branches of government. The president's duties are relatively simple and straightforward: a proposal is passed by congress and he either signs the bill into law or vetoes it. As with the example of Illegal Immigration, President Barack Obama signed into law February 2009 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act wherein "$400 million in funds [will be budgeted] to strengthen security and infrastructure for ports of entry on the Southwest border" ("Immigration "). Previous to that particular bill, President George W. Bush signed into effect the REAL ID Act of 2005 that required national standards for issuance of official identification--amongst many other provisions (109th Congress, H.R. 418). The REAL ID Act in its influence of immigration policy would in theory make it much more difficult for illegal aliens--more specifically terrorists--to obtain official identification or abuse asylum (NCLS REAL ID, Calvo ). The passage of both acts represents a clear interest to further protect the American borders and the security of U.S. citizens by the federal government. More recently the issue of immigration regulation seems to be a legislative priority solely based on the frequency of related proposals. In first session of 2011's 112th Congress, legislators have proposed many immigration legislations. One example is a proposal by House Representative Marsha Blackburn (TN) that would amend the preexisting Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 essentially enhancing federal assistance to the state and local efforts in reducing illegal border crossings (112th Congress, H.R. 100). Taking a more drastic and roundabout approach to immigration law, a Constitutional Amendment was proposed in a joint resolution by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana on January 25th, 2011 that would change the parameters defining a U.S. citizen thereby making citizenship ultimately more difficult to attain (112th Congress, S.J. Res. 2). The issue of illegal immigration is sure to be a focal point for many congressional sessions to come .
In addition to federal regulations, the states are granted reserved powers by the 10th Amendment , and those powers can be utilized to provide additional border protection. Especially in states bordering the Mexican perimeter, the recent increase in state-level immigration legislation has exemplified the discontent caused by the perceived inadequacy of federal immigration laws. One nationally popularized and hotly debated piece of state legislation is Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 of 2010. In a move reported to primarily decrease "crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants" (Crime Stats, Castillo), Arizona's SB 1070 would essentially require people under "reasonable suspicion" to provide law enforcers with proof of immigration status or else face arrest and deportation (State of Arizona, Fact Sheet for S.B. 1070). The Arizona legislation, in addition to polarizing public opinion, has inspired many states to consider similar laws in order to harshen punishment for illegal immigrants, especially those committing crimes within the U.S. (Wood ). In November of 2010, House Bill 296 in Texas, if passed, will similarly require law enforcers to "make a reasonable attempt, if practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person detained or arrested" (82nd Texas Legislature, H.B. 296). When Governor Rick Perry addressed the Texas Legislature on February 8, 2011 in his State of the State address, he reiterated to constituents and legislators alike that Texas has a need for increased border security in order to stop "cross-border violence " (Perry ). He also adds that we need to "establish criminal penalties for employers who knowingly hire workers who are [in Texas] in violation of immigration law" (Perry). Revealing a glimpse into the federal-state dynamic, Perry delivers a harsh criticism of the federal government's handling of border security by claiming "Washington remains an abject failure in this area " (Perry). And although under the ever-watchful eye of the federal government, states are seemingly gaining momentum in their ability to govern laws--particularly immigration laws--typically handled at the national level.
In a system of federalism, the federal government and state governments oftentimes will have ideological clashes. As we have seen in Arizona and Texas, when the actions of the federal government are regarded as insufficient, the states must innovate law that best fit the will of their people. So who is right? Whose system is better? The benefit of federalism is that "tyranny is less likely when government's power is dispersed" (Greenberg). It could be argued then that neither the state nor federal level of governance is better than the other because each play a significant role in policy making. Considering the most recently federally mandated immigration law was passed in 2005 (REAL ID Act), it seems likely then that states would need to pass necessary laws to address more immediate problems like the increase in illegal alien-related crime. In doing so, the states are essentially experimenting and tinkering with laws that could eventually influence federal legislation or other states' legislation (Greenberg, 84). The Arizona Senate Bill 1070 is an ideal example of the cascade effect seen when "experiments work [and] other states . . . adopt their ideas" (Greenberg, 84). Conversely the national government is able to enact more precise federal laws based on the work of states. The process is further honed by the transitions of power within Congress. In other words, no one ideology dominates for too long because party majorities are constantly shifting (Greenberg, 84).
Undoubtedly the issue of Illegal Immigration warrants attention from both federal and state governments. Within the American system of federalism, the national government shares responsibility with the states in protecting its borders and its citizens. When the federal government's laws are deemed insufficient by the states, the states invoke the 10th Amendment and create laws of their own. This system allows the whittling of state policy, and although the laws enacted might be controversial, they do expose important subject matter to public debate. Because the Founders so meticulously delegated power across the federal level down to the state level, the government of the United States is protected from tyranny and is ultimately able to mold policies that reflect the will of its people.