When states take the initiative to crack down on illegal immigration, are they overstepping their Constitutional powers, or simply cooperating with the federal government in carrying out its duties? The Obama Administration feels states have gone too far; the Supreme Court may say otherwise. Your thoughts?
(As you read the article below, please click on the individual hyperlinks embedded within the story to get the full picture of what's going on nationally with immigration. Then come back to this blog and post your comment)
Driver's license rules fuel new immigration debate
The constitution may not have explicitly mentioned anything about immigration, but one of the enumerated powers of the constitution did stated that the federal government can establish a uniform rule of naturalization. A federal court has recognized this as giving the federal government the power to regulate immigration (and thus we see the influence of the Necessary and Proper Clause). In this case, through the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause, immigration is now one of the issues federal governments may intervene in. This argument, therefore, overrules the states argument of using the 10th amendment to their advantage now that the federal government can control the policy on immigration (and thus no longer a power reserved to the states since it is [indirectly] mentioned within the enumerated power of the constitution). For this reason I do believe, based on the interpretation of the ruling and on the constitution, that states decision to directly control immigration are “overstepping” their boundary unless the Supreme Court finally gives an interpretation that will overrule the federal courts argument through the Supremacy Clause (which states that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and laws created by the federal government are considered the “supreme law of the land” and negates all state laws that goes against the Supreme Court's interpretation on Constitution or federal laws).
ReplyDeleteWootark Kim, Period 5
PS: (for accuracy)I should also had mentioned that(on the last sentence) for state laws that goes against laws enacted by Congress, the Supreme Court can decide whether the federal law was unconstitutional or not if the State takes the federal government to the court (or vice versa)-thus the "supremacy" of laws created by Congress, in a way, can be overturned if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the state.
DeleteYou know what, while all the above remain true I change my mind on my opinion. While the enumerated power says that states can establish a uniform rule of naturalization I don't believe it means the federal government can regulate the influx (or entrance of) illegal immigrants. The Necessary and Proper clause may help out the federal government to spread out its power on deciding how potential citizens can be naturalized, but regulating naturalization doesn't mean regulating immigration.
Deleteand gosh dang it we need an edit button...
(on last sentence) edit: regulating *illegal* immigration (not just immigration)
DeleteYou were right the first time. Controlling our nation's borders, and the influx of immigrants across these borders, is a national power. Some states are doing everything they can within their reserved powers to hinder or impede national efforts to deal with illegal immigration.
DeleteOh... yay!
DeleteThe Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate nationalization, an enumerated power, includes the power to regulate immigration. The federal government determines how an immigrant becomes a nationalized resident. States that make their own immigration laws are defying the federal government. Obama had the power to enact this policy, that does not make an illegal immigrant a citizen, but gives them the ability to get a work permit. Every immigrant that has access to this came to the country as a child and most likely did not know it was illegal. States refusing to uphold this policy are breaking federal law. According to the Supremacy Clause, when there is a conflict between a state and the national government, the national government is supreme and wins the conflict. Because of theses reasons, states are overstepping their constitutional powers.
ReplyDeleteKenna Steuben p.3
But Obama cannot grant citizenship, and if state law says that only citizens can receive drivers' licenses, then I don't see any problem with states denying these "deferred status/legal presence" individuals a license.
DeleteAlthough several states have crossed certain boundaries on immigration laws, such as Arizona, I can't say they have surpassed their powers. It is a state duty to protect its boundaries from illegal citizens. However, I tend to agree with immigration laws like California's, in which a benefit is given to support and allow an illegal citizen its equal protection under the law. In a state like Arizona, its laws can often be too strict and revoke any sort of benefit, such as small business employment and a rising economy because of a larger work force. California has a large economy because of these supporting immigration laws that can allow illegals to get an education and join the work force. So, I believe that the states haven't done much to be considered "unconstitutional", but could end up hurting themselves because of these laws.
ReplyDeleteJames Lynch
Period 3
I think states aren't doing anything unconstitutional at the moment because the government isn't doing anything about the immigration issue at hand so what are the states going to do besides actually taking matters into their own hands. I think the government should let the states keep doing what they're doing, such as allowing illegal immigrants to stay for 2 years legally, while they find a permanent solution to repair the broken immigration system. States are taking power that belongs to the federal government but when the government isn't doing that great of a job utilizing that power, states should take the initiative to handle the illegal immigrants while the government is figuring out the national issue and solution.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Park P.5
The national government has the overall say on the immigration issue. The enumerated power to regulate nationalization gives the government the right to decide who is legal and who is not. As for the States complaining that immigration will destroy their economies, they are correct. Most illegal immigrants arrive with no money and therefore, are put on welfare programs. The tax payers are giving money to people who were not rightfully here in the first place. However, the States only have this money because of the federal government. So in the end, the government still has control. If the States want a continued flow of money for welfare programs etc... they better obey their national government.
ReplyDeleteKaitlynn Abshire P.3
Arizona and other states have started an "attack" on immigration, but the true question is if this immigration control falls under the state or national government. What I see is the national government has the power to control immigration, and state doesn't. In the Constitution the national government has control over immigration by "nationalization," which falls under the "necessary and proper clause." Nationalization gives the national government the power to control the immigration rate, deportation, boarders, etc. Therefore state doesn't have the power control their boarders or deportation. In my opinion, what I see Arizona doing with immigration is causing their own government to hurt. Immigration is import for southern states' econmy. Plus I believe what these states are doing is completely unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteMarco Cruz, Period 5
Well, after reading the article, I am simply going to state what I think of the Arizona Governor’s actions: I absolutely agree with Jan Brewer. Good for her! I understand that kids are being brought here as babies without their consent because their parents want to cheat, but those kids who were/are being brought here should become citizens. It's called "naturalization" which is stated in the fourteenth amendment, section one: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States..." (Amendments to the Constitution). This indicates that people who are NOT citizens of the United States should not enjoy the benefits that citizens enjoy. There is no other way around it--unless those who are granted "deferred status" under Obama's DREAM Act actually become citizens. The states have the power to decide whether they want immigrants to have "driver's licenses or other state benefits" (Stoichet par. 1) not the federal government; or at least the states SHOULD have that power. No, the Constitution does not specifically declare anything on immigration, but Congress should give this power to the states because they should be able to decide who in their state gets what benefits that the state provides. If the Obama administration wants to intervene in states' affairs, then how about he goes down to the southern borders of the states bordering Mexico and ask the people if they think the people who are in the U.S. illegally should have benefits given by the state legislature, and ask the people if they want to pay for these illegal immigrants (no matter if those immigrants chose to come here or not) because essentially that's what they'll be doing. The taxpayers fund the state and federal governments, which in turn use that money to pay for people who could actually just become a citizen and be able to say "I feel like a citizen" and actually be one at the same time.
ReplyDelete-Rachel Lynn Thompson, Period 5
As for the issue of immigration, I don't believe that the states are "overstepping" the boundaries, because there are no clear boundaries in the first place. How can something be wrong if there is no clear definition of right in the first place? I believe the states have full control on their respective immigration policies, that is, until the federal government decides to institute national laws or policies on the matter. At that point, the states will have to surrender their power because of the enumerated power of naturalization in the Constitution. Until then, each state is free to make their immigration policies as restrictive as they please.
ReplyDeleteAshley Martinez
Period 2
I think that the federal government should do something about immigration since they have the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. Because the federal government isn't doing anything that would make an impact important enough, illegal immigration can still continue. In my opinion, the federal government should do something to stop illegal immigration because illegal immigrants take jobs that the citizens of the USA should have.
ReplyDeleteJohn Lee
Period 2
Congress just can't seem to agree on immigration reform. Too many factions within each party are thwarting progress. But due to the recent presidential election in which a disproportionate amount of Hispanics voted Democratic, the Republican party is starting to see the importance of immigration reform. So perhaps we'll see something in the next couple of years.
DeleteThe federal government has decided to give illegal immigrants a sort of relief program to help them out in this country. The federal government has issued this program throughout the country and the few rebellious states that have decided to go against the new program should really just stop and follow the federal governments orders here. With the supremacy clause the supreme court can overrule the states laws that go against federal law. Also the states acts can be considered an act of discrimination because its deciding to go against a certain group of people while the federal government is trying to help them. So the states have a lot going against them in this situation.
ReplyDeleteRigoberto per 3
I'm not sure the states are going against the program. The program grants legal status, not citizenship; it allows them to stay here temporarily, but it does not confer citizenship. So you might disagree politically with what some states are doing, but I don't believe they're doing anything illegal (except assert their 10th Amendment prerogative).
DeletePresident Obama made an executive order that would give those immigrants two years in America without having to fear about being deported. With the Latino community’s support, the law was passed, but states, like Arizona, deny deportation relief and they argue that it is to protect their state boundaries. In order to make sure there are no more illegal immigrants crossing over the border, Arizona will ask the person to prove that they are a citizen. If they are not, then they will be denied entry. The Supreme Court said it was okay to do this, and I believe it is okay to do so as well, so Arizona has not overstepped their boundaries yet. However, after Jan Brewer denied illegal immigrants from obtaining a driver’s license, I feel as if Arizona is going to push their authority over this matter on immigration as far as they can, or until the Supreme Court tells them that is it unconstitutional. So right now I say those particular states have not gone too far, but I will say it when they begin deporting the illegal immigrant themselves because only the federal government can do that.
ReplyDeleteFor the ones who were brought here without their consent, since they were only children, should go through naturalization. Jan Brewer’s decision to prohibit illegal immigrants to gain a driver’s license was not the wrong thing to do because illegal immigrants can take away limited resources that are meant to be reserved for a citizen. Ultimately, I want them to become citizens.
Valerie Raranta
Period 2
Constitutionally the states aren't doing anything wrong. States can do anything that is not forbidden, thus it's legal. Morally, however, it is crazy to think that a state can legally deport you though you personally have considered yourself an American your whole life. For example, "In New York, Antonio Alarcon... feels much more American now than Mexican. "I work hard. I pay taxes. I have a lot to contribute," he said." There are numerous cases like this. Morally we understand that this is ubsurd, but in actuality Brewer is not wrong, legally that is. Luckily, Obama's Administrations has made attempts to help slow this down by forming a relief from deportation. "An executive order by President Barack Obama allows those who entered the country illegally as children to remain and work without fear of deportation for at least two years". On the contrary this is just a place holder. For just 2 years he is asking the states to "hold on" and "do me a favor and try to find a balance" since they "feel the states went too far". A lot of people feel the states went too far. At the end of the day it is still up to the states.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Hall
DeletePeriod 5
I think the states should continue what they are doing, allowing immigrants to have work permits for 2 years, until and if the Federal government decides to make an impact throughout the states and taking control. It is not unconstitutional to take matters in their hands
ReplyDeleteStephanie Aranda p.2
I believe immigration can only go so far. In this case the restrictions from States such as Arizona and Nebraska are too strict but others such as California are too lenient. For Arizona to discriminate the immigrants who got 2-year deferrals from getting a simple drivers license because they might need it for life in their 2 years in the US or at least they should give these immigrants a temporary license for their time in the US. It is understandable that the states are trying to take immigration policies into their own hands but the federal government needs to step up to the plate and be more demanding for that policy. The two governments are working as a Dual Federalism system with the separate immigration laws when in reality they should be working as a Cooperative Federalism to get the policies done together and satisfy one anothers mandates for immigrants and immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteNick De La Rosa
P3
Illegal immigration is a problem in this country. The federal government clearly has laws restricting illegal immigration. Some states have chosen to enforce immigration laws since the federal government has failed to do so. States have a right to enforce laws that they feel are in the best interest of their state. Therefore I believe that the states are cooperating and not overstepping their authority.
ReplyDeleteCaitlyn Olesniewicz
Period 2
I think the states are doing what they feel is the right way to control the immigration issue in their own hands, since there are no national laws in place pertaining to the situation. I agree that the children who were taken to the U.S illegally should be able to fall under naturalization because of the fact that they had no choice in the matter. That being said, I support states' decisions addressing the situation; whether they be strict or lenient, until the national government steps in.
ReplyDeleteSarina Fimby p.3
The federal court has recognized this as giving the federal government the power to regulate immigration and this is an example on the influence of the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is in the states' hands to manage the immigration boundaries on their territories. I do agree with the 14th Amendment stating that any citizen who is NOT a citizen of the United States should not enjoy the benefits that citizens enjoy, but my hunch is: when is it okay to allow them? In some circumstances the children are dragged into the situation out of innocence. The enumerated power to "regulate nationalization" gives the government the right to decide who is legal or not. Ultimately, it is up to the national government to decide what to do.
ReplyDeleteJanelle Magpayo
Period 3
The national government originally has control over this issue because they regulate the nationalization; however, they do not have a set policy or law for immigration at the moment, or are in the process. Therefore, each state has taken the initiative to disregard immigrants when it comes to obtaining a license and a work permit. The states have the power to do so since both of those documents are under the states' power. Most states are refusing to accept immigrants mostly due to the "free" money immigrants would receive through welfare. In the end, however, the Federal government holds supreme power over the states in this regard so once the law is set to accept or deny immigrants, it will be mandatory for states to follow; this is also known as a mandate.
ReplyDeleteAlana Tridiimas
P.3
The federal government has the right to regulate nationalization which allows them to regulate immigration as well. The right to regulate nationalization is an enumerated power which allows them to become involved with the issue of illegal immigration. States do not have the power to deport anyone or make their own immigration laws, but if they do, they will be ignoring the rules of the federal government. In the Supremacy Clause, it states that the Supreme Court can overrule any state laws that go against federal law, therefore the federal government always wins. When looked at side by side, the federal government looks like they are helping the immigrants by giving them opportunities to work here, but when looking at the state laws, it seems as if they are just trying the deport all the immigrants back to their country. States should not have the power to create any borders or regulate any type of immigration acts because that is "overstepping" their constitutional powers.
ReplyDeleteMonica Rodriguez P.2
The constitution explicitly gives the national government control of all immigration so even if the states wanted to, they would not be allowed to refuse any person from receiving any form of immigrant status. However these states see that the government is attempting to limit the future of these undocumented workers. So in reality the states have no control over the immigration of people be it legally or illegally because either way it is under the sole jurisdiction of the US Government. The only thing that states are trying to do is slow down the immigration process. Since the distribution of driver's licenses is a state function they are trying to prevent these undocumented workers. Since the states have no constitutional power to affect immigration in any way than the state governments technically aren't working with the U.S. Government, and they aren't overstepping any boundaries because there are no boundaries for them to overstep.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the states are undoubtedly going out of their way to prevent the inevitable. They can't stop the government from providing citizenship to immigrants. So all they are doing is being a thorn in the government's side so to speak. All they are doing is complicating a situation which is slowing down an already gruelingly slow process. The states, in my opinion, are acting like little children who are hopelessly trying to prevent something they have no control over.
Austin Young Per.5
DeletePerhaps, but their frustration runs deep because the Southwest in particular feels the national government is "dropping the ball," while individual states deal with the perceived (or real) burden of massive amount of illegal immigrants within their borders. I think Arizona is right in asserting itself, if for nothing else to prod the national government into action and create some national dialogue.
DeleteThe States are doing what they deem necessary to protect their economies and other stuff because they believe that granting certain benefits to the illegal immigrants is unfair. They are right to do so because they are within their boundaries. However, I do not agree with what Arizona is doing because they are deferring these undocumented youths from the road of legal citizenship. I know that the Obama administration wants to give these youths some kind of chance to thrive in the U.S. along with their generation but if states like Arizona and Nebraska, then the whole effort would be wasted.
ReplyDelete-Dyanne Carranza, Period 3
(I'm sorry my answer is insufficient. I sort of don't understand the prompt and haven't got enough evidence to back me up. Basically, what I'm saying is that if Arizona, Nebraska and Texas choose to refuse giving out drivers' licenses to "deferred status" immigrants, then they've got the right to, but it's still wrong for them to do so. They should just really listen to the national government because I could say that this is a form of discrimination?? but I'm not really sure.)
I feel like the states are overstepping their power because the illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. are coming and receiving work permits to become "legal" for a certain amount of time, which is nationally legal. The immigrants should be allowed benefits that come with their permits and deferred status because they are no longer "illegal". Unless the immigrants that are coming to the U.S. are committing crimes or engaging in illegal activity, then the states should be allowed to step in and take control of the situation. Otherwise, the states should step back and let the national government carry out their duties.
ReplyDelete-Ashley Liu Pd. 5
I agree with Obamas Administration that some states are going too far when it comes to dealing with illegal immigration. The constitution does not state what are the steps to dealing with immigration or about immigration its self. The Supreme Court rulled that the congressional power to regulate naturalization, includes the power to regulate immigration. It still doesn't justify the discrimination happening towards illegal immigrants. Some states and citizens blame immigrants for the bad economy in their state or in the whole country. This is not a true fact. Some immigrants pay taxes, they don't take advantage of the welfare system because they can't get welfare if they dont have a social security number, most have jobs that take money from their pay checks for the government like every other person in the U.S. There are some immigrants that dont pay taxes but that is because they are afraid of being cought and sent back to their country. Most immigrants come to America to get freedom from their oppressive government but, they have to suffer in America also because of discrimination and because they don't have the opportunity to be a part of the amazing American Government.
ReplyDeleteKriztine Rodriguez P.2
The federal government has not taken a big stand on "fixing" the immigration issue. Therefore, I believe it is right for the States to determine the level in which they will allow/prohibit immigrants in their individual states.
ReplyDeleteOn the matter of immigrants themselves, I think it really depends on a person's the situation. If they were too young to understand that they were being brought here illegally, then they have every right to consider themselves U.S. citizens, simply because they never knew anything different. The children shouldn't be punished later on in life because of a decision they did not make. However, I don't think that they should receive the same exact benefits as registered citizens. The two year plan is a good idea, because it allows the Federal Government to figure out how it wants to regulate the immigrant issue; but gives immigrants a chance to stay here and get a job and receive some benefits. In the end, the states have the power to decide until the Federal Government makes a national decision.
Madison Sweet
Period: 3
Part of Obama's reasoning in issuing this executive order was to basically tell Congress, "Hey, if you're not going to do anything about immigration, then I'll use every available means as president to do something, and if you don't like what I'm doing, then get your act together and do something better." We'll see if it works.
DeleteWhen it comes to illegal immigration, every state has different needs. Kentucky isn't having the same issues as Arizona, therefore, neither should have the same federal programs. If every state was to follow the new federal immigration program, some would have no sign of change at all whilst others are forced to deal with negative economical issues. The federal government is allowed to take part in this program because they pay the states to abide by it. If states so wished, they could "restrict state benefits from these programs". If what the federal government is trying to enforce was both proper and necessary, they would make it a mandate. States have the reserved powers to do what they think is right for their people, and ultimately in this situation, are not acting unconstitutionally in deciding what is best for maintaining sound policy and economy.
ReplyDeleteJustine B. P.5
I believe that states are being too strict and some too easy-going. The federal goverment really has no rule against it, except what's in the constitution. The states are being pretty ignorant about the situation though, the more immigrants that come into this country, the more money states will make, and the smarter we'll be. Don't get me wrong there are some smart americans, but when it comes down to it, the smartest people in this country are from a different descent or even came from somewhere else, the states should be almost honored that people want to come to this country to learn here, and reside here. Instead the Americans that are at home sitting on the couch living off hard working people's taxes, complain about illegal aliens entering the country. Overall the states do have the power, bu the federal government needs to rethink these constitutional laws, in order for the US to start working more properly.
ReplyDeleteIvo De Gioia
p.2
I believe that the states are doing what needs to be done to solve their own issues. Even though it may be unconstitutional and going to far, it is better than not doing anything in the first place. It is, in my opinion, an interpretation if the states are going to far with their limits and the way the Obama administration sees it is totally understandable because the fact that dealing with these issues is not given to the states. States such as, Arizona, should be left to what they are doing because it actually is making progress to the issue of immigration. With that said, if there is progress, then why end it?
ReplyDelete-Nyron Dones
p.5
I think the states should take over the immigration issue because the national government is not doing anything about it. Since the national government isn't doing anything, they should let the states keep doing what they are doing. This power does belong to the national government (by nationalization) but when they aren't doing anything, its the states right to take control of it.
ReplyDelete- Vasu Patel P.5
In my opinion the states are not doing anything wrong here, they are simply cooperating with the federal government. I understand that in the fourteenth amendment, section one it states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." (Amendments to the Constitution) BUT not every immigrant was "naturalized" in the united states. and as it states in the article from CNN "Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who arrived in the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military, can get a two-year deferral from deportation and apply for work permits." so i do not see how they are being treated unfair in any way or how this is all unconstitutional. The states aren't taking anyone's right to citizenship away. If they really wanted to be a citizen they should apply for a green card!
ReplyDelete-Ariana Santillanez pd. 5
*If the "unnaturalized" wanted to be citizens they should apply for a green card!
Deletethe first point i make is that these people are here illegally. That in and of itself should be more than enough justification for the govna of arizona to deny them whatever she decides to be 'reserved for citizens' while congress can formulate its own route of naturaization, to which i say the only way to justify an illegal becoming a citizen is to have them sweat and toil for two years in the military or have been paying taxes this entire time and only then do 'I' agree that they have earn the right of citizenship, the blatant use of that power to harbor illegals in MY land reeks of political plans to win elections by giving these NATIONAL criminals a way out of deportation and politicians a way into office. However i do not serve in border patrol nor do i serve in the coast guard. in fact my future employment pursuit would have me occupying other countries so i don't think that would make me any better. Regardless of my wishes this is a matter for both the Na't to define and the states to interpret and enforce, at muzzle velocity if need be.
ReplyDeletePreston Douglas Pyle
Per 2
May those above work to help America prosper.
Sry forgot to put anonymous
DeleteYou crack me up (in a good way), and you make some valid points. Obama's "deferred status" order is based loosely on your conditions. Only children of illegal immigrants who have graduated high school or served in the military are eligible for "deferred status."
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHandling immigration should be a state issue because only the states that have problems with illegal immigration(Arizona, Texas, California, New Mexico, Florida) they are really the only ones that know how they should handle it. Why should Congress decide how these states should respond to immigration and tell them what laws to pass. So if Arizona and Texas want to pass stringent immigration laws they should have the power to do so because after all this is affecting them the most anyway. Now some people may argue that it is discriminatory but it seems pretty fair to get licenses they need to have work permits and visas that is perfectly legit because now these illegals have a purpose for getting a license.
ReplyDeleteLevi Gonzalez Per. 2
It is up the states to determine their actions against immigration as they can exercise their reserved powers that which the national government is restricted by the constitution as it is not an enumerated power. The discrimination Arizona, Nebraska, and Texas are opposing towards immigrants can be justified as immigrants become accustomed to the benefits they receive and can also ruin their economy by the many who don’t pay taxes. The states have the right to do what they please to do with immigration whether the national government wants to or not. Until the states and federal government find a perfect equilibrium, the experimental states can continue their progress.
ReplyDelete-Bryant Fascio perio 3
The immigration issue should be left for the states to decide because the national government is not doing much right now. It is true that some states are crossing the lines with their restrictions on the immigrants but they are only doing what they think is necessary for their states. The immigration issue is affecting the states the most anyways, mostly because of the economic factor. I also understand what the national government is trying to do with their 2 years plan. But until the national government come up with a reasonable resolution to this problem, the states should have full control of the immigration issue.
ReplyDeleteGwen Pham P5
It seems to me that the states have gone too far with what they believe is "handling" illegal immigration. When illegal immigrants come to this country, often times they have no other choice but to bring their children with them. How can certain states prohibit benefits such as driver's licenses and college tuition to children who were at the mercy of their parents' actions? When immigrants cross the border they come to live in America, not solely an individual state. The federal government should maintain the power of immigrant status within the nation. The states have the opportunity to abuse their power appointed to them by the 10th amendment and discriminate against illegal immigrants. These immigrants apply to be employees, citizens, and or students to the United states of America, not Nebraska or Arizona or Texas.By the necessary and proper clause the Federal government can pass any law to uphold enumerated powers. The constitution establishes a uniform law of Naturalization that is to be under the authority of the Federal government. States like Arizona do not have the authority to deny work permits or driver's licenses to immigrants. The Obama administration's policy does not grant these immigrants legal status, so the states have no power over limited documentation of these immigrants. Authority over the immigrants and the status of their documentation should be left up to the federal government. That way, any immigrant that is looking for solace in our nation will find equal treatment in any state they find themselves in. My family, just like many others, comes from generations of illegal immigrants who apply for benefits such as work permits and through countless hours of labor find themselves raising their children to become the new generation of the work force in these United States.
ReplyDeleteMarisa Munoz
Period 3.
Good point. They don't become citizens of a state. They become citizens of America. And it's entirely possible that states are using their reserved powers to discriminate.
DeleteThat is a really good way of putting it Marisa! I totally agree with you, there are some states that seem to abuse their power when it comes to immigration.
Delete-Jordan Dynes
I believe that this matter should be handled by the states, because the states that deal with this matter truly knows how it feels and affect their state. As much as i would like to say that Congress should handle this because it seems so far that the states can't right now. but it wouldn't be right for Congress to decide because not every state has to deal with immigration as much as Arizona, Texas, California etc. the federal gov't can only deal with immigration with what they have enumerated to them by the Constitution. even though what Arizona seems to be doing is a little wrong and discriminatory, it has it rights to deal with immigration how it says in its state constitution. either way, someone, whether it be the federal gov't or the states, needs to deal with this or maybe the federal gov't should stay out of this because the laws they pass conflict with those of the states. i say that those that are illegal, but have special skills or assets, or even those that cause no trouble should be allowed to stay here or get a driver's license or work permit. those that are troublemakers, they are the ones that should be kicked out.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Ortega per. 2
I believe that it should be up to states to decide their specific immigration policies, however, at the moment that power belongs to the national government. It is individual states, typically near the borders, which have immigration issues and therefore they require the final say. I am not sure whether the states have the power to create this new policy, but I do believe it to be beneficial for the states themselves. The power over immigration still remains with the national government, and states should take that into account.
ReplyDeleteBethany Frantz pr.3
Each state has a different problem with illegal immigration. Because of this I believe that each state should have a say in how to deal with their own immigration. However, I realize that it would be very easy for the states to abuse this power and discriminate against immigrants. I propose that the national government should have a program that monitors the plans of the states. This way, the national government could have a way of checking the constitutionality of each of the plans. If one of the state's plans is unconstitutional, then the national government could step in and adjust the plan to make it costitutionally appropriate.
ReplyDeleteAdam Guizado
Period 3
I believe that it is up to the states to decide what to do with illegal immigration. The states are the ones affected the most by the immigrants. In truth there are problems with how states are handling the problem but they are the ones feeling the repercussions.
ReplyDeleteSelena Murad
per. 2
A subject that will always be an issue is immigration. There is no possible way in stopping every single person that crosses the boarders illegally, so in order to cope with these problems, I believe that each state should come up with their own federal law that will enhance their ability to at least control their immigrants. Each state should be able to choose whether or not they would like to enforce harsh immigrations laws or at least cope with the immigrants already in their state. States like Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Texas all have the same immigration problem while states like Missouri and Nebraska don't share it quite as much. Each state should be entitled to do what they think is best for their people and ultimately their economy. Allowing immigrants to receive drivers licenses and work permits will ultimately take away jobs from the American citizens who are entitled to them, which will increase the unemployment rate and will make the economy fall due to less people buying items.
ReplyDeleteMelissa De Silva
Period 2
I think that it should be up to the national government to decide what to do about illegal immigration. If an illegal citizen comes to the United States and becomes a valuable member of society, then they should have the right to have a driver's license and have assistance from the national government. The United States is supposed to be the land of opportunity so people who come from other countries should be able to have that chance to prove themselves. I feel that the an individual state should not have the say on who can come into the country and who can't because although the illegal immigrants are entering into a particular state, they can move to other states which would give the national government the power to decide on illegal immigration. We need to have federal immigration laws because we are all one country.
ReplyDelete-Jordan Dynes Per. 3
The illegal immigration issue is a state issue simply because states don't face the same amount and kind of illegal immigration. For example: Does Arizona (who shares a land border with Mexico) share the same illegal immigration issues that New York? (who faces illegal trespassing by Europeans) No, the two face two totally different issues and problems, that are all under the umbrella of illegal immigration. Therefore, the individual state should regulate their own policy for immigration.
ReplyDeleteNow for the matter on what kind of benefits a US citizen and deferred immigrants are granted, and share, are a federal matter. I argue that the state should be able to regulate the qualifications, but the benefits be the same nationwide. Benefits should be transferable from state to state, otherwise its not a US Citizenship, its an individual State Citizenship.
-Ryan Jackson
#Per5AllTheWay
ReplyDeletewashington.johnathon@yahoo.com
I think since this right is indirectly stated in the Constitution and is a power given to the federal government, then it is the federal government's job to take care of it. Although there have been instances where states tend to take initiative on national issues in a way to make reform, this particular issue is so controversial in terms of not just state and federal rights, but for many this is an issue of human rights and social justice. Therefore, like all other social issues in the past, the problem will not be solved until the federal government makes an official decision on how immigration should be controlled both on boundaries and naturalization. Regardless of how poorly the federal government is doing in reforming this issue, it does not give the states the right to overstep their boundaries, much like how it is not acceptable for the federal government to overstep its boundaries (whether they do this or to what extent is another issue altogether). Either way this is a national issue, not a state issue, and the government should make a decision soon before the immigration issue reaches this point for not just one, but many states.
Sabrina Gebreselassie, per. 5
States Get Tough On Immigration: I believe that it should be up to states to decide their specific immigration policies, however, at the moment that power belongs to the national government. The immigration issue should be left for the states to decide because the national government is not doing much right now. It is true that some states are crossing the lines with their restrictions on the immigrants, but I also believe they are only doing what they think is necessary for their states. With understanding both the states problems and the national governments problems I understand the national government is trying to create and accomplish their 2 year plan for illegal immigrants. The power over immigration still remains with the national government, but until the problem is resolved with the states should take control of the immigration issue.
ReplyDelete~Sonia Mejia~ period 3
The issue of immigration should be left to the states. They've taken charge of the situation at hand for quite some time now since the government hasn't exactly stepped in to save the day yet. It should be up to the state's decision to issue laws that they feel are necessary to protect the rights and benefits of naturalized Americans. However, I do believe that the immigrants that entered the country as children shouldn't be held victim as roughly as an immigrant who has recently entered. The immigrant children were too young to know how serious and big of an issue their coming to the states was. In them being brought to this country, they grew up accustomed to American culture and benefits that they feel as American as anyone else, and it wasn't until a certain age and level of understanding about immigration that those rights they thought they had will be ripped out from right under them. Other than that, I feel that the way the state's are handling the situation with the new immigrants overall is understandable. They're only doing what's best for their state's economy, since many immigrants don't pay taxes. Until national government wants to address the issue of immigration formally, let the states keep doing what they're doing.
ReplyDeleteMia Tablac
DeletePeriod 3
To be completely honest, I am not well versed in the topic of illegal immigration and the policies set forth to regulate it. That being said, after reading the article, I can see both sides of the argument, and the positives and negatives to each. They are, in fact, very different issues with immigration in the different states. Although, ultimately, it is within the scope of the national government to regulate and handle the immigration situation. From what I could tell form the article it seems that this is just a temporary band-aid for a very big booboo and I am interested to see how it is treated in a more final manner. We are the land of opportunity and a symbol of freedom and liberty, but I guess we are trying to put a cap on that and figure out to what extent? On this rare occasion I have not yet formed my opinion on this subject so, yep.
ReplyDeleteDominique Strickland
P.3
I believe that the states are overstepping their boundaries (Arizona, Texas, and Nebraska). If the National gov. allows for immigrants to be deferred then that means that they are in a way allowed to stay here, because of this they should be able to grab some benefits in order to survive in the US like a drivers license and a work permit.
ReplyDeleteIt's not fair for the states(like Arizona) to be discriminating against deferred immigrants, they pay taxes, they paid money in order to have a deferred status so it isn't fair for them to have paid that money and not get the benefits.
-Alan Campos P.2
I believe that states should be allowed to enforce their own immigration laws and that the national government should not be allowed to declare their own laws of immigration such as the Obama Administration's Deferred Action Program, especially when their are states that don't agree with it. Arizona's action to not listen to the federal law is pushing the boundaries of their Constitutional right and could easily be turned down by the Supreme Court but The Obama Administration should not have issued their Deffered Action without state approval. If illegal immigrants want work permits and Driver's Licence, they need to go through the process of becoming a citizen, not just pretend to be a citizen for two more years than they have already been doing.
ReplyDeleteSteven Pierce
Deleteper. 5
This is clearly a federal issue or a federal enforcement but I believe that the states have a right to do something about immigration since the federal government isn't really doing much about it. In the Constitution, it talks about how the this a power given to the federal. Doesn't that mean that it's their job to take care of it? But they haven't so why should they restrict the states from trying to protect their own state if the federal government isn't doing it. In the end, it's the federal government's issue. In my opinion, I think the states should be able to do something about it.
ReplyDelete-DenMari Bustamante P.5
No matter how serious a state believes their illegal immigration problem is, they do not have the jurisdiction to enforce federal law. Immigration is a federal issue. The state can not act as a vigilante no matter how grave they think their situation is. The state must be an example on how to solve a problem through legal remedies. Otherwise, how can they expect its residence to follow all state laws, even those they don't like. It's not do as I say, not as I do.
ReplyDelete~Yesenia Castaneda
Per. 3
^
ReplyDeleteSteven Pierce
Per. 5
In the issue of illegal immigration there will be people who oppose it and those who accept it. I think "deferred status," the recent federal program proposed by President Obama, will give illegal immigrants the opportunity to live their lives without fear and constitutionally pursue their own happiness. But, governors from the states of Arizona, Nebraska, and Texas believe that since "deferred status" doesn't grant "legal status" and only grants " legal presence" to illegal immigrants for a period of 2 years, then they don't believe it's worth it to give illegal immigrants the benefits of having a driver's license, social securtiy and other things a U.S citizen normally has rights to. By doing this I think the governors of those states are discriminating and being predjudice against all immigrants, no matter where they come from, because this issue is not only targeted towards people coming from Mexico or other spanish speaking countries and from denying them these benefits, governors, are not giving illegal immigrants the chance to become citizens of the U.S. I think governors fear that immigrants will ruin the economy of their states and the U.S and that they'll change America in a bad way. But, America was founded by immigrants and I'm sure there will always be room for a diversity of cultures and new ideas.Although there is no gaurantee that "deferred status" will be around for years to come, I think states like Georgia, have the right mindset and make America the place it was originally meant to be, a place of oppurtunity for ANYONE who is willing to go after it and I believe many are willing to.
ReplyDeleteVanessa Richardson per.3
DeleteI feel that the issue of immigration should be left up to the national government. What people need to remember is that in the beginning everyone was an immigrant (colonial times). Every one came to America to have a chance at a better life; how has that changed in the past 200 years?
ReplyDeleteAlso when states like Arizona, Texas, and Nebraska say that immigrants are taking away jobs from citizens there are jobs that citizens won't do that immigrants would just to have to chance at a better life.
Yes the boarder states feel that they need to take action when the "government has dropped the ball" (Mr. Cavanaugh)but what the need to realize is that they are overstepping their boundaries when it comes to the immigration issue.
Elizabeth Nunez P.5
I feel like states are oversteeping their boundaries because the federal government has the power to regulate immigration (a uniform rule of naturalization) so the federal government should be the ones to takes action on this issue not the states. It becomes aggravating once states separately decide on complicated issues that involve many factors. As was mentioned in the article the immigration system is already broken, states shouldn't add to the problem with these unnecessarily added laws and just allow the national government which is the " law of the land" to make the final decision. Plus in my opinion I see this program as positive because it gives people a chance to succeed in life.
ReplyDeleteAlexandria Jones per. 3
I believe what Jan Brewer did was fine although it is pushing the boundaries. The states should decide how to handle this immigration issue since its directly affecting them and the federal government is not doing anything about it. If these illegal immigrants want to have a driver’s license, work permit, and expect benefits, I believe they should become citizens.
ReplyDeleteMonica Tacawy
P.5
It makes sense for the issue of immigration should be left to the states. Even though the constitution gives the federal government the enumerated power of naturalization, some states need stricter laws for immigrants to follow than others. A state such as Arizona, which has a large amount of illegal immigrants, has to crack down a bit more on this issue compared to a state like West Virginia, which has an extremely small population of immigrants. However I believe that high immigrant-populated states need different tactics for dealing with their immigrants. The idea of granting deferred status is a great step at treating immigrants more fairly while still setting guidelines for them. Giving them a work permit for two years without getting deported allows immigrants to work toward bettering there life. It does set guidelines by restricting them from obtaining things such as a license and other benefits. Many immigrants come to America because they want a better life for them and their families. As long as they work hard and abide by the laws granting deferred status is a great temporary solution
ReplyDelete~Christian Ruiz
Period 2
I think that this is a federal issue being that it is the federal governments job to protect its borders, but I do think that states should have a right to do something with illegal immigration into the states borders. They have more of an idea on the immigration into their state and how it is affecting it. Obamas administrations should not have passed the Deffered Action program without states approval because the federal government doesn't assign drivers license and work permits, The states do. if the illegal immigrants want these licences they should go through the steps of becoming a citizen. Then again this is just my opinion and it could be completely wrong. Please dont hate me.
ReplyDeleteAustin Staight
Period 2
The National government's action to defer immigrants in order to provide benefits to those who've been here since they were children, in my opinion is a good thing. "...We will then as a group turn our attention to how to resolve this problem," for immigration in the United States is an issue, and I am also a bit understanding as to why certain states (Arizona, Texas, and Nebraska) are against the action, which I believe they have a right to be. I believe these states are within their reserved rights "boundaries", whether or not their decisions are deemed "discriminating". Bringing young immigrants together and offering benefits such as work and social security seems to benefit the community socially, states would be gaining a larger labor force, but the chance that this can also strip money from the economy is also present. I personally, am a bit torn on the issue of immigration and all the many possible solutions.
ReplyDeleteKristina Rosales Period 2
Directly quoting Article I, Section 9, Clause 1.
ReplyDelete"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
So, prior to 1808 Congress was not able to prohibit immigration, but was able to tax each person no more than ten dollars.
The states are over-stepping their boundaries because Congress is now able to regulate and prohibit immigration and is explicitly a power reserved to Congress.
As I mentioned on the first day of school, the Senate did just recently pass an immigration bill that would implement over 700 miles of border fencing as well as border patrol officers in order to regulate and manage the influx of illegal immigrants. Congress has made actions in order to regulate immigration in multiple states.
-Simon Lee P.5
Illegal immigration always had multiple viewpoints from republicans and democrats, from gun laws to immigration reform. Issuing illegal immigrants driver's licences is encouraging the illegal population to remain illegal. Once being a legal citizen of The United States was a privilege, now it is being diminished as a second option. They should not be granted the same benefits as US Citizens/ legal residents, for it does not distinguish who benefits our society and helps contribute for the government.
ReplyDeleteThis is a drastic step towards the wrong direction, in years down the road illegal immigrants will demand the right to vote for "they reside here and demand the right." Although allowing illegal immigrants to be issued driver's licences may increase the revenue generated from fee's on licences and help create a safer driving environment on the roads, it is not worth the influence of more immigrants illegally entering The United States. Overall illegal immigrants should not be given rights that will encourage them to stay illegally.
-Grace Anne Guerrero
Period 3
I believe that the federal government should be in control of immigration. They have enumerated powers to regulate the path way to citizenship through the Necessary and Proper clause supported by the Supreme Court, but in order to actually achieve immigration reform I believe that the national government must cooperate with the states. The national government could specifically devise the way to citizenship (work permits, IDs, driver licenses, etc.)in a law, and then the states could make this law more known and accessible to immigrants through educational programs. This way the federal government gets what it wants through its enumerated powers and states feel like they did something by teaching immigrants how they can best contribute to the country and the state they are in.
ReplyDeleteAndrew DeLay
per 3
I believe the national government has full regulation on the immigration issues, not a reserved power from the 10th Amendment for the states. Even though I believe that Obama's Deferred Action regulation wasn't a success (simply "work without fear of deportation for two years"), the states still have no constitutional right to do any regulations that involve immigration. So, they have overstepped their boundaries by creating their own state policies.
ReplyDelete-Peter Park per. 5
I think the main focus is if the states can do what they are doing with illegal immigrants. I say yes because the government in the national level arent really putting illegal immigration into full force in their agenda. The states that are taking action should not issue a driver;s license to non-documented immigrants or immigrants who are criminals. Immigrants who do have work permits and have not violated any laws, should be granted a deferral. Yes, they dont pay taxes, and yes they get the same priviliges as us citizens, but allowing them to get through the documentation process will hopefully bring them to actually be citizens and not worry about being deported when their work permits expire. At the mean time, they do not qualify for the benefits that are out for citizens. Allowing so many illegal immigrants to stay and have work permits are pushing society towards the fact that, "oh getting a work permit in the US is not difficult" and that will lead to so many immigrants with work permits. They should limit work permits to regulate and keep the illegals at bay and punish any immigrants who are violating any laws.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Cho
Deleteperiod 2
I believe the states have gone too far with carrying out deportation on their own. Obama has made an executive decision of keeping immigrants here for 2 years until the resolve the issue. I feel as if states should enforce the federal system but not to the extent as to where they won't give an immigrant a driver's license. I think a state like arizona should mainly focus on keeping their borders closed from illegal immigrants and work with the ones that they already have inside instead of stepping up their powers
ReplyDeleteAdrian Garcia
Periiod 2
In my opinion immigration will always be a controversial topic no matter what your perspective might be. I think the availability for immigrants to live and work here for at least two years without fear of deportation is a great idea because they can at least see if this is the right country for them before becoming a citizen. After all this is the land of the free.
ReplyDelete-Amani Alexander
per.3
I Agree with Grace Anne by saying that illegal immigration, if not regulated or modified will eventually become "legal." By granting illegal immigrants the same rights as U.S. citizens, they have no incentive to apply for U.S. citizenship because they have all the benefits like having a driver's license. The illegal immigration issue should definitely be given to the states because it seems like Congress isn't really doing much to fix this immigration system. With the benefits of Congress' Deferred Action, the rate of immigration may increase because immigrants see that they will be protected and have rights. According to CNBC, "Unemployment rates rose in more than half of U.S. states in July and fewer states added jobs, echoing national data that show the job market may have lost some momentum." It is good to help those in need, but in reality would it be a good idea to encourage more illegal immigrants to come to America, where the unemployment rates are rising?
ReplyDeleteDevin Oyetibo
Period 3
I believe that the states have a right to issue their own laws against immigration. The federal government is not doing as much as they should be when dealing with this issue. Since the federal government isn't doing much, why not let states take matters into their own hands and deal with the immigration issue that is effecting their state. The fact that Obama's Deferred Action is coming into play shouldn't take away the states rights to regulate themselves. The whole giving "work without fear of deportation for two years" is nice but giving immigrants the rights of U.S citizens is not right, immigrants should go through the process of becoming U.S citizens to receive all of the full rights respectively.
ReplyDelete-Ashley Collier
P. 5
After reading that article, I felt like the whole issue on immigration is one big diaster. If the states had settled on resolving the issue before, and figuring out what type of immigration laws they wanted, it would not be like this today. Considering that, i believe that the Federal government should in fact, take charge in this situation. One reason is because isnt immigration a federal power in the first place? Immigration should not be a reserved power. The states also have very different law and conditions on this issue. Many states do not allow legal status but legal presence? What defines legal presence? If the federal government had fixed the issue, immigration laws would be defined as a whole for the United States. It would be more balanced and immigration would have a substantial set law and distinguishable boundaries. Yet the states fail to recognize how much structure they need to fix the problem of immigration.
ReplyDelete-Sam Luevano p5
Immigration is definitely a National issue but since federalism is a part of our country then there are certain things that the states can do having to do with immigration. I completely agree with Arizona's policy on not giving the immigrants who are still technically illegal licenses. The only way someone should be able to get benefits or a job is to be a citizen of the U.S.. I also believe that the national government also needs to crack down on immigration at the same time because all these people coming in illegally and like leeches draining both state and national funds. States still have there own rights and can make decisions for themselves like Arizona has done along with Texas and others.
ReplyDelete-Austin McMillin p.5
In my opinion I don’t believe the states are overstepping their constitutional powers. The national government isn’t taking the necessary steps to bring this issue to a head, and if the states were to comply with Obama's Deferred Action regulation then that would be like giving the illegal immigrants a “free ride”, it’s not giving them incentive to go out and become a legal citizen because they’re living like any other U.S. citizen is. The states are taking the initiative and regulating “driver's licenses, welfare benefits or other public benefits to illegal immigrants” (Dave Heineman) so that the immigrants are compelled to take action in order to secure their place in society. The states have been “waiting for direction” and since they hadn’t gotten any they decided to take matters into their own hands.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Swift
period 2
As the national government holds the power of naturalization whatever they rule in regards to immigration should be recognized as law in accordance with the necessary and proper clause. Therefore all states should recognize those immigrants with "deferred status" as having legal presence as well as able to apply for work permits. No where in Obama's policy though does it say that by filling out the application the immigrants will also have access to drivers licenses and state benefits. Although the immigrants have "legal presence" they are not legal citizens and therefore not protected under the Constitution in particular Article 14 which states that states can not deprive citizens of their rights through laws. It is therefore up to the states to decide what benefits they want to grant these immigrants (who are still technically illegal) based on their own state of affairs.
ReplyDeleteRobin Tajingwa P. 5
This is a really complicated issue.
ReplyDeleteConstitutionally speaking, it is important to note that through the 10th amendment, states do have full jurisdiction in its actions regarding immigration.
I personally feel that based on what Brewer said in response to President Obama's response, "So if undocumented immigrants in their states couldn't get licenses before, they can't get them now, since the legal status of the immigrants has not changed", I think if they can get permits 2 years before a renewal, then I believe that their legal status has changed for 2 years as well.
I feel that illegal immigrants can contribute a lot to the states since they came here to work harder. Some of them, educationally, turn out to be at the top of their class.
They are people too and so deportation seems to be too cruel.
Due to Brewer's interpretation, I think she's too resistant towards change and it is unfair for so many illegal immigrants who came to make a living in the states.
It is true that immigration isn't enumerated, but due to the Necessary and Proper Clause, the issue on immigration can be put in national government's boundaries and I believe that some amendment be made to make these illegal immigrants have "legal" status to be present in the United States if citizenship is not possible.
Rishov Chatterjee P2
DeleteSorry, I forgot to put my name on my post on August 22.
DeleteI hope I can still get credit.
Rishov Chatterjee P2
Immigration and Naturalization is something that the National government has complete control over,with that said I do believe that the states have overstepped boundaries a bit by impeding progress of an executive order that doesn't even serve as a permanent solution (or at least until it becomes a law, if it does at all) to the immigration problem.It seems as though states such as Arizona are simply complicating the process by stripping immigrants of only part of the what the DREAM act(which only applies to immigrants who were brought in as children) offers. According to the governor of Arizona the benefits offered in the DREAM act will negatively effect the budget of the state. However to be deferred costs money, $465 to be exact, which is meant to cover administrative costs. Which goes to the national government. Which can then go to the states in the form of GRANTS(class connection?!). Grants which may be used to pay for programs such as the one described by the DREAM act. And if so and there is a grant which pays for this such program and there are strings attached that prevent Arizona from doing what its doing then there is a problem.
ReplyDeleteIsaac Ayon Period 5.
(ALL OF THIS COULD BE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG)
In my opinion, I can see where the states are coming from. They’re not exactly over-stepping their power because there are no set laws issued by the national government that states that illegal immigrants are able to receive benefits. In the constitution, the only enumerated law that issued immigrants is amendment 13. “All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside,” (Amendment XIV). The amendment states that only NATURALIZED immigrants are able to receive equal benefits. States are, as of now, able to impose laws to regulate immigrants, because they are following their own belief as to what is legal.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I completely agree that the States are being too difficult when it comes to whether or not immigrants should receive the basic benefits. People come here for a better life, or a better education, thus they will eventually receive naturalization. But as of now, they need the basic to prosper in the US. They might not be able to vote, but they should be able to at least learn how to drive. The government of Arizona suppresses such ideas because they only extend their limits to legal residents; they do not allow “deferred status” immigrants to have driver’s license. Like I mention before, people come here for a better life. They will eventually be naturalized; so with basic necessities, such as driving, States shouldn’t be too difficult.
Thao Dao
Period 05
I believe the states are overstepping their bounds because the immigration issue is a matter that should be and should have been handled by the federal government under the necessary and proper clause in the Constitution which encompasses the CONGRESSIONAL power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization (not a state power). States who ban the naturalization of immigrants or deny the immigrant application for a driver's license are directly defying the federal government which cannot happen-or continue to persist-under the Supreme Court ruling of "supremacy" clause in the Constitution. The states must adhere to what the federal government passes into law (however ineffectual it may be in solving the immigration issue) but, until then the President reasons that a program will go into effect that will at least delay deportation of immigrants who don't pose a threat.
ReplyDelete-Dean Victoria
DeletePer. 3
By taking the initiative to crack down on illegal immigration, it is in my opinion that states are cooperating with the federal government in carrying out its duties. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the states do not seem to be overstepping their Constitutional powers since the power is actually given to the federal governmental itself, whereas the states can be viewed as the federal government's spawn in this situation. Since the federal government can control who enters and leaves the United States, the states themselves are assumed to cooperate and comply with the same opinion on illegal immigration. I would actually like to know if states have the reserved power to restrict benefits from illegal immigrants, whether by federal government influence or not?
ReplyDeleteLawrence Bowens
Per. 3
Technically, the states should be allowed in deciding Immigration laws as long as it stay within the borders of the constitution for this is stated in Amendment 10. Therefore, the states are definitely not "overstepping" their constitutional powers. There aren't any standards of Immigration laws in the Constitution and I believe that the states are taking things step by step.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with waiting for a concrete solution. There are tangles in this issue such as Amendment 13, like Thao said. For now, the issue with giving them benefits that American citizens have should be decided within the states' powers.
Esther Park
P5
National Government does have the enumerated power to regulate immigration, therefore leading to the problem that states are overstepping their powers. It is solely up to National government to decide the status of an immigrant and a state shouldn't have the power to defy that. They need to listen to what the national government establishes like drivers licenses and states rights. So for arizona to take that right away was wrong. The states should listen to the rules the national government set up and establish the rights they want to provide the illegal immigrants with, but they should not take any away. There needs to be a balance and compromise.
ReplyDelete-Fahrin Bhuiyan
Period 5
Some of the states are carrying out the duties that the federal government SHOULD be enforcing. We cannot continue to encourage illegal immigration however we do this by proposals such as the defer action program. What I mean is those who take the time to try to legally gain American citizenship see that their efforts are near futile because it takes so long to attain legal citizenship, if ever. Why would anyone go through all that trouble when they can stay in America virtually tax free without penalty and probably not get deported if they don’t participate in criminal activity? So now it is more appealing to make the voyage into the US illegally because we don’t have strong enough measures to successfully limit illegal immigration. But also beyond that, presidents take an oath at inauguration to protect and defend the United States of America, but how can that be accomplished if we do not even know who is in our country?! This problem goes beyond stereotyping illegal aliens as Hispanics because there are plenty of illegal aliens from Asia, Europe, Africa, and all over the globe. We simply tend to categorize them as Hispanics because they are the fastest growing ethnicity in America right now, expanding exponentially. But the point is, we do not know who is in our country, we could be hosting spies or terrorists or a number of other things that pose a threat to America. It’s fair to conclude that America isn’t necessarily well liked among other nations so there are plenty of groups that would rejoice in our downfall. We have to protect ourselves. On a less dramatic note, Brewer, Heineman, and Perry aren’t just acting alone or supreme nativist. They are, for the most part, getting complete support from their constituents who are suffering from the effects of massive illegal immigration. Many illegal immigrants are paid under the table because technically they’re not supposed to be here. Their unscrupulous employers are taking advantage of this cheap labor which is a magnet for more illegal immigrants. So the employers have less incentive to hire American workers because they cost more with laws such as minimum wage and labor laws. Since the illegal immigrants don’t report their incomes to the government they can’t get taxed, however they are still utilizing our social services such as health care and education but the states don’t receive any of those funds back. So I propose that we crack down on illegal immigration within the country by making it very uncomfortable for them to stay but at the same time make the process to LEGAL citizenship an easier and more attainable one. We must punish the employers and make it more desirable to hire American workers. If we are supposed to be a country of law, then it needs to be enforced.
ReplyDeleteShernae Hughes
Period 2
National Government for the U.S. has priority over what the states say they can or cannot do. That is to a certain degree of course. In my opinion, I feel that States are "overusing" their power towards immigration. I feel that our National Government should have the only say about immigration and have all states follow that rule. The National Government should enforce our Immigration acts, clauses, and rights to all border states. Immigration problems should be taken care of by our National Government and nobody else. Our government should enforce these laws towards the states, which in return, states should execute these laws towards their foreigners.
ReplyDeleteMuhamad Rasyeed Jusran P.2
I don’t believe that the States are overstepping Constitution rights. However, the states should not defy the national governments policy on this immigration issue. Like the states, Arizona, Texas and Nebraska, they are defying the federal governments policy since they are making their own judgments for the illegal immigrants that are allowed to apply for the deferred action program. Alessandra Soler said in the article, "This order conflicts with state and federal law, because people who are granted deferred action will, in fact, have authorized presence in the United States." So even if states do not support illegal immigrants, they still have the right to legally be here because the national government allows them. As Morse shares, The policy doesn't grant "legal status," but does give "legal presence."
ReplyDeleteSince the states all have very different views on immigration the federal government should step in and fix this issue. I believe that the national government should provide permanent solutions to this issue because what they have now is only temporary.
Donna Macarasig p.2
When states started looking into illegal immigration, I don't think that they were overstepping their boundary with their Constitutional power. The states are not in complete power over themselves because the national government is always able to have a say in what they can and cannot do. In the end if the issue is too huge then it will have to be taken to the state legislature. The power was given to the states to make decisions such as these and they may be in over their heads but it's the states that are making separate laws about illegal immigration, therefore it needs to be up to the states to come together with a fully agreed consensus to consult with this arising issue.
ReplyDelete~ Leia Parnell, Period 2 ~
It is reasonable to say that the issue of illegal immigration is a dilapidated mess. There are both conservative and liberal views that are in a constant struggle on how to approach the issue. However, what is becoming ever so evident is that states are overstepping their Constitutional powers. Across the United States, states with more liberal and lenient views on illegal immigration (i.e. California) versus those with more conservative and strict views (i.e. Georgia), have been abusing their powers. For the large majority of illegal immigrants that arrive in the United States with no proper documentation, they come with the aspiration of becoming a citizen of the United States of America and not becoming a citizen of a certain state. And so, by having states regulate certain restrictions (i.e. obtaining a valid drivers license) on the status of illegal immigrants would metaphorically mean that the state is trying to regulate its own government/nation. It's because of this that it is up to the federal government to regulate the states who overstepped their Constitutional powers over illegal immigration.
ReplyDelete- Timmy J.
#Period5Rulez
The federal government does have some supremacy over the states, but states shouldn't always have to agree. They should be allowed to voice their own opinions and almost "veto" the federal law. That way, mob rule is prevented and the ideals of federalism stay intact.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government may interfere with immigration around the border, but it should stop there. Once non-citizens are within the U.S., the states should dictate the laws of immigration. It's more of an intrastate than interstate affair, in my opinion.
It is true that those who came here illegally as children didn't have much of an influence on their immigration to America. However, that doesn't make it fair to families who have immigrated to America legally. Personally, my parents have waited years to be legally recognized as a citizen, paying fees and filing documents of all sorts. Working hard for your family legally isn't the same as working hard for family illegally.
That being said, illegals in our country shouldn't be granted state benefits if they aren't to pay taxes.
~Rommell Noche p5
I do agree with the Obama administration that some states are overstepping their boundaries. All natural-born Americans were born in a country full of opportunity - a privilege some people don't have. How is it right for them to deny people that same benefit?
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do agree with Rommell that illegal immigrants should have to pay taxes if they want state benefits. I, too, come from a family who immigrated here legally and has paid thousands of dollars to become naturalized. It isn't fair to my parents that illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes like they do, and still get the same benefits.
Ideally, the federal government has the power to and should take control of this situation. The national government should find a way to naturalize these illegal immigrants because they do deserve citizenship, they just need guidance and the feeling of safety to. But seeing as it is incredibly difficult to get all 50 states to agree on a decision, right now it is sufficient enough for states to decide how they want to handle the situation, right or wrong as that decision may be. Both supporters and non-supporters of "legalizing" the illegals have valid points.
Shannen Maghanoy
Period 5
The national government has used implied powers in the sense of the immigration debate under the necessary and proper clause. Although not specifically listed that the federal government has power over the states in this spectrum of the law, it does say that federal government has power in regulating naturalization. So all in all, the federal government does have the right to control immigration and the states do that. The states have to back off of this issue and be able to let the federal government "do their thing".
ReplyDelete-Brian K. per. 5
The fact that a person is an illegal immigrant should not be a factor to provide driver licenses. The driving licenses should be a lawful way to track a person’s driving record and liability. The lack of driver license will not stop a person from driving but if will prevent the law from keeping record of their acts. Their status as illegal would not change and a specific restriction could be applied to identify them as illegal, but still make them liable. Every state could find their own way to make sure a drivers license is not interpreted as a status document.
ReplyDelete-Jackie Araujo
period 3
The national government and the states both have the power to control immigration. The difference is that the national government has specific rules to their way in controlling immigration, but the states do not. Arizona's case of immigration is doing themselves tons of economical damage because they're are restricting too much of the fasting growing population in the US. In conclusion, its not who has the power and the most of it, its if their immigration policies are, in fact, viable for helping this country out.
ReplyDelete-Maurice R.
per.2
The national government and the states both have the power to control immigration. The difference is that the national government has specific rules to their way in controlling immigration, but the states do not. Arizona's case of immigration is doing themselves tons of economical damage because they're are restricting too much of the fasting growing population in the US. In conclusion, its not who has the power and the most of it, its if their immigration policies are, in fact, viable for helping this country out.
ReplyDelete-Maurice R.
per.2
States like Arizona, Texas, Nebraska, and Calfornia that have to deal with immigration are each eddected by it in a different way which is why Caliornia unlke the other states provides benefits for illegal immagrants. The other states obviously have found that illigal immigration has impacted them negatively and consequently lead totheir desire o deny immigrants driver's licences and other benefits. With that being said however, the states are over stepping their boundries by trying to control immagration as much as they are because even though immagrants may come to a certain state, it's still a national issue because they are illegally entering the entire country, regrdless of hat state they are in.
ReplyDeleteJonathan MIkhail
P.5
i think that national govt should come up with something for all the states to agree upon because illegal immigrants affect the country on the whole, not just the states. And even if some immigrants come in from 1 state, theyrebasically free to go to all the others.
ReplyDeletecalvin m
Deleteper 2
I believe that the only way to obtain any form of citizenship or rights of U.S. citizens is to become a naturalized citizen. It is in the power of the National government to decide who is legal and who is not. Regardless of who, how or how long the immigrants have been here, it isn't fair to all of the other legal naturalized citizens or U.S. born citizens who work hard and pay taxes. We shouldn't promote any state or national program that encourages illegal immigration nor programs that grant them benefits.
ReplyDeleteLauren Verdugo
period 2
My thoughts to this is that I think both Arizona (and other states) and the national government is at fault in some way. States should be allowed to enforce their own immigration laws and the national government should not be allowed to declare their own laws of immigration such as the Obama Administration's Deferred Action Program if the majority of the states do not approve of it. Immigrants who want to become a citizen should have every right to. But until they show some kind of proof of their citizenship, they should not have the right to gain any kind of benefits from living here. This is why they are called ILLEGAL immigrants. If you don't have proof of your citizenship, you are breaking a law. If immigrants want work permits and driver's licence, or any kind of benefits from living in the U.S., they need to go through the process of becoming a citizen like everyone else who moved here legally. If the government is just going sit around and let anyone into the country then there is no reason to have immigration laws.
ReplyDeleteShayna Perales
Period 2
This is a touchy issue. I don't think that immigration should be a state's decision, it is a federal concern. I do not mind immigrants at all, in fact I think it's great people take the steps they do to make a better life for themselves. That does not mean that I agree with illegal immigration. There are long processes and a lot of work to get the necessary paperwork, and that is what needs to be done to be immigrate. We are a country made of immigrants, after all. Who are we to say no one else can immigrate here?
ReplyDelete-Dallas P.
Per. 2