America is considered to be the “nation of immigrants”. Indeed, the majority of the population is immigrants or children of immigrants. The flow of people to the United States began in the 16th century. However, in the recent years, the flow of immigrants increased (especially from Asian countries). These days, the United States face the problem of the increase number of illegal immigrants who present “immigrants are also members of ethno-racial communities”. Many illegal aliens come from Mexico in search for a job. Some of American employers provide illegal immigrants with jobs because of the low wages they can pay to them. On the one hand, the migration phenomenon is an important component of the development of the international community. On the other hand, there is an “impact of the flows of migrant workers on States”. A great flow of immigrants impacts the US economy, country wages, as well as one the quality of life of these immigrants, including poor working conditions. The impact of immigration fids its reflection in the US policies, in particular, in the immigration law that causes much debate. Thus, there should be established norms and policies that would harmonize the process of immigration and “basic principles concerning the treatment of migrant workers and members of their families”. This paper deals with the implications of the immigration law and is influence on the rights of immigrants, both legal and illegal, as well as on their life in the U.S. One of the cases is United States of America vs. Arizona Immigration Law that reinforces the role of police in checking the immigration status of the arrested people. The implications of the law will have considerable impact on the life of both legal and illegal immigrants. The Obama Administration claimed that“S. B. 1070 violated the Supremacy Clause on the grounds that it was preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and that it violated the Commerce Clause”. The US District court blocked the key provisions of the law, the Judge Richard Paez noted that “there can be no constitutional application of a statute that, on its face, conflicts with congressional intent and therefore is preempted by the supremacy clause.”. The court provided that the law undermines the right of the American citizens and conflict with the federal law and affects the U.S. foreign affairs.
In the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), immigrants or aliens are defined as “any person not a citizen or a national of the United States,” and they have right to enter, visit, and reside in this country. There are three types of “aliens” that can resist in the country: “nonimmigrant”, “immigrants” and “refugees”. All aliens that wanted to became citizens of the United States, had to “satisfy specific eligibility criteria”. Over the years, the laws and policies concerning immigrants changed. One of them is established in the Immigration and Reform Control Act. According to the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986 (version of the year 2006), it is considered to be illegal for any American employer to hire illegal immigrants, and enforces to retain the worker once he/she is determined as an illegal alien: “It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph, to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment”.
This is the basis of the immigration law. However, according to the Arizona Immigration Law, every employer, after hiring an employee, the employer is obliged to verify the employment eligibility of worker through the e-verify program and keep a record of the verification for the duration of the employee’s employment. The use of such verification is voluntary, but the Arizona Immigration Law makes it mandatory. Debate over the Arizona immigration law, called the Legal Arizona Workers Act, “rages in regard to every conceivable aspect of immigration law and regulation”. The main aim of the law is to control the illegal immigration and “targets employers who hire illegal aliens”. The essence of the low in “law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone arrested for a crime if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally; it also allows them to cite illegal immigrants for failing to carry documents required under federal law”. This is believed to help reduce the number of illegal immigrants. This is the main objective of the law and it is probably the only positive side of the law. However, the law was met with a considerable criticism. First of all, it was sued by the Obama Administration as the law presupposes a “wide-open invitation to racial profiling and an intrusion onto federal authority”. Regardless this fact, the bill was introduced in 19 states that lead to legal and policy problems. (2) Moreover, even when “congress considered the E-Verify strictly voluntary for good reason, the program continues to evolve and improve, it imposes significant burdens on employers”.
The law seeks closer look and consideration; it has its strengths and weaknesses. First of all, it will impact the ties of the police to immigrant communities that can lead to the growth of the unreported crimes, as witnesses (the immigrants) will be afraid to co cooperate. Second, the law presupposes considerable budget cuts that might impact large segments of legal and illegal immigrants. Thus specifically bills will encourage the “state to ask for proof of legal residency when obtaining a driver’s license”. The driving license provides the folk with the government benefits, such as allows register to vote and obtain passport. The limitations imposed by the new driver’s licenses bills will cut possibilities of illegal immigrants and reduce their flow to the states where driver’s license is easy to get. Today, due to the enforcement of the immigration law many immigrants live under harsh conditions, they lack jobs and many children form immigrant families “live in poverty and lack health insurance”. This fueled the questions about the cost of the illegal immigrants in schools and immigrant communities “where the foreign-born population has risen rapidly in the past decade”. It is one more issues that should be addressed when implementing the Arizona immigration law.
There are several cases related to the Arizona immigration law that prove that Arizona immigration law should be re-viewed. In Florida the Arizona-style immigration policy was implemented, however, with some differences. First of all, “racial profiling is a big concern for many across the state”. The legislation was drafted by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and it provided some changes. In particular, it prohibited the use of race, color, or national origin in enforcement of the law considering the immigrant. Second, immigration status must be determined only during criminal investigations. It is a considerable improvement of the law that does not affect people’s rights that much.
The implication of the implication law will also affect same-sex married couples. Even regardless DOMA, the same-sex marriages will not have immigration benefits and the law prevents the same-sex immigration as according to the law, the permanent citizen cannot sponsor the immigration of his/her spouse to the US. Thus, people are forced to live separately in their native country alone or life together abroad.
Providing a discussion of policy implications of the Arizona immigration law, we can propose solutions that follow: the arrest based on the immigration status should be prohibited and “officers should check immigration status only when people are arrested for serious crime” (3) Furthermore, the e-verification is inappropriate and violates rights of immigrants, thus, it should be abolished. The practical effects of this decision might lead to the re-viewing of the law and providing other decisions to the problem of the illegal immigrants to the country.
The United States of America are considered to be the “nation of emigrants”. However, these days, the government faces the problem of the fast growth of the immigration and the number of emigrants. One of the decisions to this problem was the Arizona Immigration Law. However, the implication of this law has negative consequences. First of all, it violates the rights of immigrants and contradicts the US federal laws. In addition, it has a negative impact on the U.S. foreign affairs. This is why, the Obama Administration sued the Law. According to the decision of the court, many key points of the law were abolished. The decisions provided in the comment are directed on the re-viewing of the Arizona law and making it more “humane” towards the immigrants who live and work in the United States.
Bibliography
Aizenman, N.C. “Illegal Immigrants’ Legal Kids Snarl Policy: Increased Birthrate Exacerbates Issue”, Washington Post Staff Writer, April 15, 2009, D8.
“Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated”, The Legal Arizona Workers Act, 2011
Before the Supreme Court, Brief Of Business Organizations As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Chamber Of Commerce Of The United States Of America et al. v. Michael B. Whiting et al., 2011,
Brown, Patricia Leigh. “Itinerant Life Weighs on Farmworkers’ Children”, New York Times, 2011, page A18, New York edition.
Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano 544 F.3d 976, 9th Circuit, 2008.
Cunningham, Patrick S. “The Legal Arizona Workers Act: A Threat to Federal Supremacy Over Immigration”, Ariz. St. L.J. 411:42 (2010).
Dever, Larry A. “Abandoned on the Border”, New York Times, 2010.
EDITORIAL, D.I.Y. Immigration Reform. NEW YORK TIMES, 2011, Web.
“International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families”, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 2220: 3. Adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/158 of 18 December, 1990.
Lozano, Pedro et. al. v. City of Hazelton, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2010, 620 F.3d 170.
Michaud, Nicholas D. “FROM 287(G) TO SB 1070: THE DECLINE OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION PARTNERSHIP AND THE RISE OF STATE-LEVEL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT” Arizona Law Review 52.4 (2010)
Mosten, Jordana Lynne. “Imagining Immigration Without DOMA”, Stanford Law & Policy Review, 21, (2010): 383.
Ngai, Mae M. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America; Princeton University Press, 2005
Preston, Julia. “Police Chiefs Wary of Immigration Role”, The New York Times, 2011; Late Edition.
United States of America v. Arizona, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7413, No. 10-16645, Ninth Circuit, 2011.
“US Code 1324a, 2006 Version”, The Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986.
Valdes, Manuel. “Immigrants may be affected by state budget cuts”, Wall Street Journal, D5, 2011.
Wright, Lane. “Racial Profiling Takes Center Stage in Florida Immigration Fight”, Miami Herald, 2011, A5