Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

State v. Fed

The Conflict:

In 2010, Arizona enacted a law, SB 1070, that required state police officers to check the immigration status of a person whom they stop, detain, or arrest—and to arrest anyone who has committed a crime that means he can be deported under federal law. The court struck down all but the first of these provisions (furthering the punishments for not registering as a U.S. citizen, and working without proper identification and documentation)—leaving in place only the "status checking" part of the law. This law is now under fire from citizens and officials alike.

Arizona explains that police must have "Reasonable Suspicions" and have been trained specifically to keep them from discriminating against other races or groups of people so because of these two very important aspects most possibilities of unlawful actions by the state towards the people become null and void.

Arizona also feels that because the federal government was not able to staunch the flow of immigrants into Arizona they should be able to take the matters into their own hands.

When the police arrest an illegal immigrant they don't always check with ICE (the federal agency in charge of finding, arresting, and removing illegal immigrants). This law forces them to check with ICE on any matters involving illegal immigrants and also saves federal government the effort of arresting the unlawful party.

Two other parts of the bill (that make failing to register and working without papers a state crime as well as a federal crime) were deemed unconstitutional, essentially on the grounds that the rest of Arizona’s plans conflicted with the federal scheme for regulating immigration. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state law that conflicts with federal law is invalid.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, rejected the idea that a state law or enforcement effort that attempts to strengthen a federal law is constitutional. This position was taken because the state's enforcement of the laws overlooked the role of the president’s discretion in enforcing the law in the first place.

The most prominent issue was between Arizona law and the president’s policy of choosing to enforce federal law. Arizona state troopers enforcing Arizona law would have no authority to distinguish between illegal aliens who are young and educated (and allowed to reside here under the DREAM act), or illegal aliens who are dangerous criminals. Both groups would be checked, detained, arrested, and jailed—and this conflicts with President Obama’s policy, not with the federal immigration statute.

Related Court Cases:

*Arizona vs Us S.B 1070

-Arizona police are able to investigate the legality of any person who has been stopped, detained, or arrested but must have a reasonable suspicion and cannot hold an individual for an extended period if they do not have their immigration papers

*Zadvydas vs Davis

-If an immigrant is under a deportation order but have no country they can be returned to they may not be held indefinitely

*Immigration and Naturalization Service vs St. Cyr

-Federal district courts have authority to hear Habeas petitions from deportable immigrants

Conflicts in Federalism

The State's Position:

The Federal Government's Position:

What do the people think?

"As for what Americans think should happen to undocumented immigrants who are currently working in the U.S., 43 percent think they should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship, 21 percent think they should be allowed only as guest workers, and 32 percent think they should required to leave the country. These percentages have been generally consistent for the past three years."

Credit: CBS/NY Times poll

Ryan: This is a perfectly acceptable law that was passed in Arizona. That is, as long as the police remove themselves from the equation and don't let their personal opinions get involved.

Kat: The national government has legal standing, because there are already federal regulations in place to deal with illegal immigration. If the state wanted to create ways to "enhanced" these policies, they could have collaborated with other politicians, and taken their ideas to the feds, instead of working above them.

THE VERDICT: Who Has Legal Standing?

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi