Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Arizona v. US Supreme Court case

No description
by

ada shehu

on 2 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Arizona v. US Supreme Court case

Effects That Will go Into Place By allowing the states to enforce the federal goverment's immigration restrictions, our nation's borders remain secure and strong.
Such strong enforcement will keep the influx of illegal immigrants in Arizona and states such as Texas and California in check and prevent them from trespassing into the U.S without any legal documentation and approval.
This would also bring down the number of incoming illegal immigrants in the U.S.
In doing so, each of the states bring down the risk of having immigrants with a strong criminal background, repeat border crossers and who pose a threat to homeland security. This protects the citizens of the state form any dangers that might arise.
The provision isn't necessarily going to take away any federal power, it only will enforce the restrictions the federal government has put in place. Other Opinions of the Court The Dissenting Opinion: Why the Majority was Wrong As stated by justice Scalia, it cannot be found in the constitution where there is a law that declines the state goverments by having their own laws on immigration.

Intrestingly enough, Arizona falls into a region that is constantly facing illegal immigration instances on a day to day basis. Like Texas and California, Arizona falls in a region near the U.S border that seperates the united states from Mexico.

If the State had little to no regulation on the immigrants who pass by or live and work in the state of Arizona, the conditions would only amplify, giving immigrants the idea that it is acceptable or unpunishable to cross into the state without any legal enforcement.

Thus you can see that it is indeed necessary for the state of Arizona to hold onto the four provisions listed under S.B 1070 in order to enforce the federal goverment's regulations and restrictions regarding illegal immigrants.

The state is not usurping power in any way, rather it is enforcing and making the federal goverments power clear to those who enter a state unlawfully without proper documentation for example.

The federal goverment does need to make sure our borders remain intact, safe and monitered, but the states that surround the borders too play a crucial role in monitoring any illegal immigrant that does not meet federal requirements.

Scalia also bases his reasoning and expression of dissent by concluding how president Obama himself is not fufilling the federal government's job of controlling immigration and foreign policy, while instead the president openly declares he isn't even going to enfore any part of it. ( The presidentand his administration openly declared that they would allow 800,000 undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S.). State Power Federal Power Case Background On April 23, 2011 the state of Arizona passed the bill S.B 1070 also known as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act", which was signed into law by governor Jan Brever.
The law places a crack down on hiring, sheltering or transporting illegal immigrants.
Before the law could take full effect, it passed onto the district court .
From here, the district court only agreed on four provisions listed in the bill, and they go as follows:
1) It is a state-crime for being unlawfully present in the U.S.
2) It is a state-law crime for working or seeking to work when not authorized to do so.
3) Both state and local officers are required to verify the citizenship or alien status of anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained.
4) The authorization for police officers to effect warrant less arrests based on probable cause of removability from the United States.
Soon after, the case was appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals, where it then was passed onto the Supreme Court. The Majority Opinion: Arizona V. United States Onto The Supreme Court The Supreme court ruled with a five to three vote on the case, disagreeing with provisions 1, 2, and 4 and agreeing with provision 3.
Provision 1, as held by the justices, conflicts with federal alien registration requirements.
Provision 2 interferes with the balance struck by Congress on federal laws that handle unauthorized employment of aliens.
Provision 4 usurps federal power of using discretion in the removal process.
For provision 3, the majority agreed, stating that the provision is indeed constitutional and that it " merely allows state law enforcement officials to communicate with the federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement office during otherwise lawful arrests". A U.S border patrol officer catching an illegal immigrant from Mexico entering San Ysido, California. Border officer here is captruing a group of illegal immigrants entering Cochise county in Arizona Precendent used by the Court The Supreme Court looked to the precedent set in
De Canas v. Bica in justifying their ruling.
This case centered on a California law code that prohibits employers from hiring aliens that do not have lawful residence in the United States.
The Supreme Court declared this law as unconstitutional and a violation of the Supremacy Clause. Justice Antonin Scalia, along with Justice Thomas and Justice Altio held dissenting opinions that agree that all four provisions are indeed constitutional.
The dissenting opinion holds that the Arizona law does not conflict with federal law; instead, the law enforces federal immigration restrictions effectively.
Scalia cites his dissent by dicussing how in the beginning of our nation's history, the founders left it to the states to regulate immigration.
Likewise, the federal government's power of regulating immigration derives from the states.
" To be sovereign is necessary to posses the power to exclude unwanted persons and things from the territory". (Supreme Court Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion).
Scalia also goes on to mention that there is no federal law stating that the states cannot have their own immigration laws as well. Students that are pro the Obama Immigration Policy U.S/ Mexico Border in Arizona Justice Clarence Thomas concurred and dissented in part, agreeing with justice Scalia in that all four provisions are constitutional Justice Samuel A. Alito also concurred and dissented in part, siding with the majority on provisions 1 and 3, but dissagreing with provisons 2 and 4. Thank You for Watching! Effects the decision had on the country The case caused much controversy among immigrants in the US that live here illegally and without any documentation.
Many of these immigrants feel discriminated upon for they feel it is not right for the state to ask them for their "papers" whenever they please.
Many other states soon passed similar laws placed under the S.B 1070, that too call for state and local officials to enforce the regulations placed on illegal immigrants. (states such as Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina have passed similar legislation after the Arizona law was passed).
The case has also opened up many questions regarding how should the federal government handle immigration, and what authority states have when it comes to dealing with immigration. Question Of the Case The question the supreme court asked when analyzing the case was:
Do the federal immigration laws preclude Arizona's efforts at cooperative law enforcement and preempt the four provisions of S.B. 1070 on their face?
Full transcript