WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday in a test of whether a tough state law intended to crack down on illegal immigrants improperly intruded on the federal government’s power to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. On one side are the Southwestern border state of Arizona; its Republican governor, Jan Brewer; and Paul Clement, a former solicitor general during George W. Bush’s presidency. Clement, who is now in
private practice, argued last month’s Supreme Court challenge to President Barack Obama’s healthcare law. On the other side are the federal government; the Democrat Obama, who has criticized Arizona’s immigration law; and the current Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, a former White House lawyer who defended the healthcare law before the Supreme Court. The four disputed provisions at issue have not gone into effect because a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court agreed with the
administration’s argument that federal immigration law preempted them. The Supreme Court will consider the following four provisions of Arizona’s 2010 law, entitled “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” and known nationally as S.B. 1070: Section 2(B) requires that state and local police officers attempt to determine the immigration status of any individual stopped or detained if the officer reasonably suspects the person is in the United States illegally. It
also requires that law enforcement officers determine the immigration status of anyone who has been arrested before the person can be released. Section 3 makes it a crime under state law for an illegal immigrant to fail to apply for a registration document or to fail to carry registration papers if they have been issued. Violators face up to 20 days in jail for a first offense and 30 days in jail for a subsequent violation. Section 5(C) makes it a crime for any illegal immigrant to
apply for, publicly solicit or perform work within the state’s borders. Violators face up to six months in jail, a $2,500 fine and three years of probation. Section 6 authorizes state and local police officers to arrest immigrants without a warrant if the officer has “probable cause to believe” they have committed a crime that makes them deportable from the United States. The Supreme Court case is Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182. Reporting By James Vicini; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Eric Walsh for-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up Download this memo (pdf) Since the passage of Arizona’s SB1070 law similar laws have been proposed in other states around the country. These laws have generally been found to be unconstitutional because they are preempted by federal law, as the federal court noted in Arizona last month. They are also problematic because they encourage racial profiling by requiring law enforcement officials to seek identification papers from anyone who looks like an immigrant. And they can cost states lots of money in legal fees and economic losses. The following materials can be helpful in pushing back against such proposed laws. Who’s behind these laws?The Immigration Reform Law Institute, or IRLI, the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, drafted the Arizona law and most of the copycat bills. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated FAIR a hate group because of its founder’s writings, its repeated participation with white nationalist groups, and its receipt of major funding from a racist organization. Copycat laws frequently rely on the work of attorney Kris Kobach, who works for IRLI. Kobach’s lawyering has cost localities who have hired him millions of dollars while the laws have been found unconstitutional. The Arizona law was brought forth by State Senator Russell Pearce, who the Arizona press has described as having a history of associating with neo-Nazis and sending anti-Semitic emails. Sources:
These laws are generally unconstitutionalThe federal government has largely exclusive control over the nation’s immigration laws. This is why federal courts, as in Arizona, have repeatedly struck down local laws or the portions of local laws that try to impose new standards on immigrants in such areas as policing, housing, and permitting. Sources:
SB1070 and copycat laws use fake data to make their caseIndividuals often point to faulty studies and research claiming that immigrants create economic, tax, or crime burdens on taxpayers and citizens to justify SB1070 and similar laws. For instance, one talking point was that crime was up and that’s why SB1070 was needed. But definitive FBI crime statistics show a consistent decline in Arizona crime over the last decade as the immigrant population increased. These studies are often filled with erroneous information or data purporting to show one thing when it actually shows something quite different. Most of this research comes from two organizations: FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies, its ally organization. To rebut this purported research, trustworthy analysis can be found at www.immigrationpolicy.org and http://americanprogress.org/issues/domestic/immigration/, with state-by-state information available at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/economic-and-political-power-immigrants-latinos-and-asians-all-50-states. Sources:
Implementing these laws costs local jurisdictions lots of moneyThese laws repeatedly lose in federal courts and the legal battles over them are expensive, so the costs to states and municipalities are very high. Arizona has had to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations only to lose in federal court. Most places have been even less lucky as they have paid bills out of taxpayer dollars. Just a few examples of taxpayer expenses defending these laws include Hazelton, PA, at $2.4 million; Farmer’s Branch, TX, at $4 million; and Valley Park, MO, at $270,000. If these laws were ever implemented at scale it’s estimated that they would cost communities huge sums without any way of recouping these dollars. One Arizona border county with a small population evaluated a proposed bill requiring the arrest of undocumented immigrants for trespassing as a result of their very presence in the United States. They estimated that it would cost taxpayers just for that county approximately $25 million to enforce the law while resulting in 12 percent fewer officers to handle other community policing needs, as well as the obligation to build an additional 683 jail beds. Sources:
Implementing these laws hurts communities economically and creates unnecessary tensionsSince SB1070’s passage Arizona has lost tens of millions of dollars from boycotts. This includes losses in the tourism industry and from municipalities that passed divestment resolutions, meaning they stopped doing business with companies based in Arizona. In towns like Riverside, New Jersey, once vibrant commercial strips emptied out and residential properties saw increased vacancy as immigrants and their supporters moved out to avoid racial profiling due to anti-immigrant laws passed there. Community tensions, once either nonexistent or small in scale, often become exacerbated as the laws are fought over. Heightening such tensions serves no legitimate purpose given that the laws are generally found to be unconstitutional in the end. Sources:
States and legislators can take useful, positive action on immigrationStates and legislators can provide alternatives to anti-immigrant legislation. High-quality positive alternatives include addressing wage enforcement and workers’ rights, integrating immigrants into communities, supporting English language instruction, community policing, and supporting women and minority entrepreneurs to help build local economies and grow jobs. Good examples of these actions, including model legislation, can be found here: Suman Raghunathan, “Immigration-Related Bills to Move in 2011 State Legislative Sessions,” Progressive States Network, July 23, 2010. Legislators can also use their unique voices to engage the debate via blogging, writing op-eds, joining panel discussions, providing press statements and/or conference calls on current events, working with their colleagues in groups like the National League of Cities and US Conference of Mayors—which have both made powerful statements opposing the Arizona law—and also via lobbying Congress and the White House. Examples of all of these can be found here: Dawn Mabery, “What Legislators Can Do,” (Washington: National Immigration Forum). It’s also possible to join with other local elected officials concerned about immigration reform to get regular updates and strategies. Two groups that support local elected officials with information, expertise, and online updates are Reform Immigration for America and Progressive States Network. More information is available below. Reform Immigration for America, “State and Local Elected Leaders for Immigration Reform” (2010). State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy, “Immigration Reform Letter” (2010). Henry Fernandez is a Senior Fellow at American Progress focusing on state and municipal policy. Download this memo (pdf) This briefing was developed in consultation with the following organizations:
For more information, see:
Which of the following happens with progressive tax system?A tax system that is progressive applies higher tax rates to higher levels of income. For the U.S. the individual income tax has rates that range from 10 percent to 37 percent. This design leads to higher-income individuals paying a larger share of income taxes than lower-income individuals.
What is domestic policy quizlet?Domestic Policy. All government laws, planning, and actions that concern internal issues of national importance, such as health care, poverty, crime, and the environment.
What is policy implementation quizlet?Policy Implementation. the stage where government executes an adopted policy as specified by the legislation or policy action.
When the United States experiences a slowdown in economic activity and GDP goes down for two consecutive quarters What is it called?A recession is a significant economic downturn spread across the economy that lasts more than a few quarters. More specifically, Recessions often get boiled down to a simple definition: when gross domestic product (GDP) declines for two consecutive quarters.
|
Which of the following statements about arizona’s 2010 immigration law is false?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 IlerngutCOM Inc.
